So, how do we get to a progressive working majority?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Completely abandon the structurally flawed two party system.
Remind me again how the process for amending the Constitution works?
you wouldn’t have to amend the constitution to get rid of the two party system. the two party system isn’t in the constitution.
but getting rid of it would probably mean presidential races sometimes being decided by the house of representatives, which would not be a happy thing, IMHO.
yes…you would have to change the constitution, or all 50 state constitutions (or, at least, the vast majority of them). You cannot have a three-party system without proportional representation, which is not allowed under any of the constitutions in our great country.
The best we have is the run-off election, which does nothing about winner-take-all.
So long as the winner wins every bit of power there can be no successful third-party. The only way for a third party to succeed is for it to actually supplant one of the big two and then destroy it.
Even if 10 greens were elected to the Senate, they would be forced to caucus with the Dems to be able to take committee chairs and vote with the majority. But, under our system, a green can only be elected to the Senate if the Dems agree not to run a candidate.
There’s is just no point in trying to reform the system through third parties. Only a campaign to create proportional representation can unlock the two-party system, which is an inevitable result of American constitutional law (state and federal).
As always, as a practical matter, I’d have to conceed to the reality, that a third party will not work in this system. At least not well. And surplanting one of the other two would be the best, if not only bet.
But in the spirit of constructive suggestions to your question, I’m partial to a political movement as follows (though I have much self-criticism for this idea, as I’m sure you might):
Create a grass-roots direct democracy in each state. Start local and grow. No party. Just people organized in cells. (Not terror cells — unless the powers that be found this to be a threatening idea, in which case, I guess they could declare them to be “terror” cells). Cells are small and neighborhood oriented. Meet in groups and discuss issues that need to be addressed locally and statewide. They elect representatives from each cell to attend regional caucuses and on up. The goal — to slowly build a statewide grass roots organization of people. Ideas for change are generated from the bottom up. What issues matter to people. Formulate ballot initiatives based on these issue. Legislate not from the assembly, but direct-democracy from the people. The groups are responsible for signature collection to get a slate of issues on the ballot each election. Eventually, candidates that support this direct-democracy are fielded. Campaigns are again based on the neighborhood volunteerism. No money. Very little money. Just people. And ideas. Using the legs of the members. A people’s union if you will — god knows we need to protect one another. Eventually, you run congressional and state-wide candidates. In the interim, you try to make change that people want — but parties never seem to support.
Just thoughts. Good luck with you party BooMan. If anyone can do it (reform the party) — I believe you and your ilk can.
two-party system.
Every state uses a winner-take-all system for electing their assemblypeople and congresspeople.
The loser(s) of an election receive zero representation. No seats. No cabinet positions. Nothing.
You want to change the two-party system, you have to either change the federal constitution, or you have to change 50 state constitutions.
i think you’re confusing two different things. there is a winner-takes-all system within each district. but in the whole–the city council, legislature, congress, whatever, there can be more than two parties.
the problem is that our system only really allows third parties if there’s strong regional-based parties. if there was a strong regional party that could compete with the republicans and dems in the south, another one in the northeast and another one in the rockies, we would probably end up with a hodge-podge of parties in congress. you wouldn’t have to amend any constitutions to get there.
but absent regionalism, then yes, the structure of our government is strongly biased against third parties. and that structural bias is made worse by the rules the two incumbant parties put into place on top of that.
well, yeah…if we had strong regional ONE-party states, that might work.
Take any issue you want: gay marriage, single payer health-care, demolishing the Department of Education.
In any given election, having two parties representing that agenda against one party that opposes it, will strengthen the party that oppose it.
The problem isn’t regional or lack of regional. The problem is that if you develop a third party and run on an agenda that cares at all about anything that one of two major parties also cares about, you weaken your hand in pushing that agenda.
It’s unavoidable in winner take all elections.
Third parties occasionally rise up to punish the party they are more closely aligned with and hand their opponents a victory (think 1968 or 1992). At least in 1968 the Wallace crowd was more closely aligned with the GOP on hating blacks. So, they got something out it. In 1992, Perotists wanted smaller government, term limits, and a balanced budget. Clinton mostly responded.
What we need now, desperately, is a third party challenge from the center-right…perhaps driven by Republicans from the mid-Atlantic and New England.
The last thing we need is a third-party challenge from the far left. We’re heading that way, anyway. Why nuke ourselves?
Why nuke ourselves?
because that’s what we do best.
Hello CG. I couldn’t resist a one-liner response to BooMan’s question. And look — it inspires debate. My answer was tongue in cheek. I don’t really think abandoning the system is possible. But I really dislike the system. Hence — a back-benching cynic. An opter-outer. Really, really more and more disillusioned with the Dems, though. Glad to see you and the BooMan here still slogging it out for the cause. But it is just one thing after another with the party that supposedly represents our interests. I mean, I quit a long time ago. But it just keeps piling on. That whole FISA extension thing a few weeks back. Ugh! I called and said — for the nth time — I quit the party. It is a joke. I’m a joke, too. It is all a joke.
Anyhoo. I have little to say on the constitutional debate this sparked. My recollection is that parties are not written in anywhere. They were an evil which Washington warned of, didn’t he? And he seems right to me. Given recent events. I think our founding father’s set up a really nice system for control of the people, with the basic illusion of freedom. Maybe there was even freedom and democracy once, in our republic. But I so don’t see it now.
Tip of the hat to you and the pond people though. Didn’t mean to be negative. Just frustration. Adios.
Lane Hudson has filed an FEC complaint against Fred Thompson’s “Exploratory Committee” for raising too much money under the pretense of “Testing the Waters” and more.
I don’t know if it will make much of a difference in the long run, but it’s a smart move, I think.
Check it out.
That’s not possible but progress is. Get more progressives elected and have them join with liberal dems to form an alternative to the DCCC. If the new caucus can raise money they will come.
The legislative branch will always reflect the middle, so focus on the supreme court.
BostonJoe wants to abandon the democrats but probably wants to draft Gore in this cycle. If progressives had backed Gore in 2000 he’d be president now and the supreme court would be a progressive force for a long time to come and not what exists now.
BostonJoe does not want to abandon the democrats. BostonJoe has abandoned the democrats. He’s not voting for, supporting or giving to a democrat. He’s retired from politics — even from the exercise of the franchise — farce that it is.
BooMan has been asking this question, I think, in various ways — for a number of years now. How do democrats win back their party. Make it what progressives want it to be. I’ve seen about as much progress toward that noble goal, as I have seen in the American war against innocent Iraqis. Sometimes people talk about progress. Sometime people point to this or that. But in the end, I see a Dem controlled congress that has continued to authorize empire and invasion of our basic liberties.
Really sick of the game. Two parties. Both, in real terms — at least in my humble view, that support a system designed to keep us all — all 90% of us working class people — keep us subjugated. It is just a view of someone burned out. Tired of watching. Please don’t let my words serve any other purpose than to galvanize you Democratic progressives to continue changing your party. I wish you the best. One day you will all prove me wrong. And I’ll be here to apologize for my cynicism.
Best gp.
I did get a laugh when I read your response to your initial post, that it was just a tweak.
It really shouldn’t be that hard for the dems/progressives to out think the lizard brain republicans, but it so seldom happens. Unfortunately this is not a new phenomenon as Will Rogers pointed out in his vaudeville routine in the 20’s or 30’s,
“I’m not part of any organized political party, I’m a democrat.”
Apparently some things don’t change.
Yeah. Will Rogers was a hoot. I feel old enough to have watched him live — though not quite so.
Don’t ever apologize for believing what your own eyes and ears are showing you. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with your perception of reality.
Peace
Hey, porgressive who supported Gore in 2000 here. Let’s not paint with too broad a brush.
However, I see no need to abandon the Dems. At this point they have abandoned me.
get the most votes.
pros and cons…creativity can come when there is honest debate. Are we satisfied with status quo, or do we really want progress. Redefine “progress”. Can we agree that it is the greatest good for the largest amount of humanity?
the answer to your question is simple: We pick a date and we march on DC. We come in the hundreds of thousands-no- in the millions, and when we get to dc we settle in. Thjat is what we need to do to get a progressive working majority.
to BooMan’s story about Dr. Steven Porter. BooMan sez Digby is siding with the independent candidate rather than the Democrat.
The Digby link doesn’t go to Digby. Googling Digby and Porter gets nothing.
Could someone show me where to see proof that Digby is backing an independent rather than a Democrat?
Oops. I fixed the digby link.
Blue America is the fundraising arm of firedoglake, downwithtyranny, and digby.
Not everyone within those groups is part of the endorsement process. But I assume digby is.
Okay thanks!
very easy get rid of the DLC who sanctions and validates the Bush Dog Democrats. In essence it allows Bush Dog Dems. to feel safe while voting against core Democratic Party Principles.
You’d need a cabal. Where’s ‘s a good cabal when you really need one?
Just a few ideas I thought I’d throw out there.