tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post2388601985668232481..comments2023-09-11T08:58:24.710-06:00Comments on Reach Upward: Two-Party TyrannyScott Hinrichshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-15640461201287466142009-09-20T07:31:08.468-06:002009-09-20T07:31:08.468-06:00My idea would be to abolish the Senate entirely. ...My idea would be to abolish the Senate entirely. Then dramatically increase the number of representatives in the House so that citizens have a reasonable opportunity to interact with their legislators. (Check the number of representatives vs. population in other developed nations to our own.)<br /><br />Then let's have federally financed elections with a total ban on outside money, House districts designed by computers rather than politicians to be contiguous and equal, and <a href="http://instantrunoff.com/" rel="nofollow">instant runoff voting</a>. <br /><br />I want a pony too.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-50114614093653625332009-09-20T04:18:29.971-06:002009-09-20T04:18:29.971-06:00I would suggest returning the senate to the old wa...I would suggest returning the senate to the old way and switching the house of rep's to a nationally elected body where the vote is handled via a proportional voting system.<br /><br />This would both remove much of the special interests, and provide a strong national government.<br /><br />Look at the wide variety of party's that many European country's enjoy. Just recently for example the (not joking) Pirate party gained 3 seats in the Swedish Parliament. The Swedish parliament has 8 Party's currently.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Sweden" rel="nofollow">Sweden Political Parties</a>RDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05610383135758813124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-87136255736948402652009-09-18T10:42:51.237-06:002009-09-18T10:42:51.237-06:00Interesting idea about the 17th amendment. Frankl...Interesting idea about the 17th amendment. Frankly, the democratic (small d) thing to do would be to abolish the Senate. We have recently enjoyed the undemocratic process by which 6 senators, who combined represent less than 3% of the American population, were given almost complete control of creation of the so-called health care reform bill. For years, we have seen the Senate dominated by members from the least populated states. Of course, the original purpose of the Senate was to prevent the unwashed masses from doing anything that would threaten the property rights of the wealthy. In that regard, it has been a smashing success.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-43048086886744728082009-09-16T17:02:37.736-06:002009-09-16T17:02:37.736-06:00GMU law professor Todd Zywicki has argued that the...GMU law professor Todd Zywicki has argued that the 17th Amendment did much to bring us to the current state where most political action is driven by special interests. His work shows that prior to direct election of senators, special interests had much less sway in politics because it was simply too expensive for them to impact legislation. Not only did they have to ply the representatives in Washington, they also had to work most of the state legislatures. This was just too expensive.<br /><br />These special interests combined to support the 17th Amendment because they could all agree on it. Their combined lobbying power proved sufficient to get the amendment proposed and ratified.<br /><br />Once senators were elected by the same pool of people that elected representatives, the cost of affecting legislation dropped substantially, since far fewer interests had to be appeased. Hence, the significant growth of special interest driven policy and the incredible growth of the federal government during the past century.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-27906713433876252022009-09-16T12:23:54.552-06:002009-09-16T12:23:54.552-06:00The Founders had the example of the East India Com...The Founders had the example of the East India Company which was stronger than many nations. I don't really know what they had to say about corporations. Something I should probably read up on.<br /><br />I certainly agree that it is bad that corporations can exert so much power on lawmakers and bribery laws ought to prevent much of that sort of corruption. I just don't think that it is a good idea to tell corporations they can spend money to legitimately influence people on political issues. Perhaps there ought to be huge fines for blatantly false information that is spread which impacts an election or referendum with the option of a do-over.Bradley Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-14545562606066964592009-09-16T08:26:36.726-06:002009-09-16T08:26:36.726-06:00I am also not opposed to corporations, they have b...I am also not opposed to corporations, they have brought us a great deal of prosperity over the years. I do however, object to the idea that a corporation has the same Constitutional rights as an individual.<br /><br />A corporation is a legal entity chartered by the states and in the case of a publicly traded corporation, has a fiduciary responsibility to increase shareholder value. Unlike individual citizens, it does not make decisions based on morality or its view of the good of the nation, it makes decisions entirely on whether they are good for investors - in other words, profit.<br /><br />The founders never imagined that corporations would grow to become more powerful than many nations, and be able to spend billions of dollars to exert their will over the legislative processes of the state and federal governments. We now have codified into law the idea that these legal constructs have freedom of speech, the right to a jury trial, and the right to equality under the law with citizens. Because of the enormous power and wealth of some of these entities, their speech is much louder than that of individuals, they are able to buy hundreds of lawyers to defend their crimes in court, and they leverage their 14th amendment "rights" to overrule the attempt of citizens to curtail their operations.<br /><br />Certainly individuals who work in or run big corporations can and should exercise their rights, including participation in the political process. They should be able to join together with like-minded citizens to pressure the government as long as no corporate money is involved. The corporation however, should be barred completely from direct or indirect participation of any kind in our political process. That is not their role. They were created to make things and provide services, not to run our country.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-39398031089347968172009-09-15T17:05:32.227-06:002009-09-15T17:05:32.227-06:00I believe that our political system has transferre...I believe that our political system has transferred far too much control to special interests, some of which are corporations. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are substantially supported by the same interests. The points of disagreement occur in that narrow band where a few interests are substantially dedicated to one party over the other.<br /><br />Unlike Charles D, I am not opposed to corporations as a matter of principle. However, I am opposed to big businesses that generate much of their wealth and power by plying the political system in order to stifle competition and use the coercive powers of government to force people to purchase their wares.<br /><br />Businesses should exist and persist by offering goods and/or services for which people willingly exchange their own resources. One of the chief roles of government is to ensure that the proper legal structure exists to encourage this type of behavior.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-21578314749498989902009-09-14T22:15:08.490-06:002009-09-14T22:15:08.490-06:00When we remove corporate power, influence and mone...<i>When we remove corporate power, influence and money from the political process, we can begin restoring power to the people.</i><br /><br />I think that freedom of the press necessarily implies corporate free speech. Why should a corporation with a news organization be granted greater speech rights than other corporations? I say, let them all speak. Upon what basis can we fairly do otherwise?Bradley Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-48949306537104067402009-09-14T16:27:47.580-06:002009-09-14T16:27:47.580-06:00"... the 2 party system is counterproductive ...<i>"... the 2 party system is counterproductive at this point, but principally because both parties are controlled by the same special interests...."</i><br /><br />Bingo.<br /><br />I think it will be difficult to achieve widespread adoption of preference voting. But if it will help break up the current two-party establishment, I'm all for it.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-71204727884235749522009-09-14T11:14:22.961-06:002009-09-14T11:14:22.961-06:00Podhoretz does describe a major part of the differ...Podhoretz does describe a major part of the differences between right and left in this country (although he frames liberals in the negative), but he fails to observe that both can be right. I think both sides would agree that America has offered more freedom and prosperity to its citizens than most other nations, but that there are still Americans who do not share in those benefits - at least there is a wide disparity in the degree to which citizens share in our nation's bounty.<br /><br />I would agree that the 2 party system is counterproductive at this point, but principally because both parties are controlled by the same special interests - large corporations, banks, Wall Street firms, and the military contracting industry. Neither party challenges those interests even when doing so would benefit their alleged core constituency.<br /><br />Can the 2 party system be made to work again for America? Yes. But only if both conservatives and liberals demand that the Constitution be amended to make the framer's intent clear: the rights enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments apply to individual citizens only, not to corporations. When we remove corporate power, influence and money from the political process, we can begin restoring power to the people.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-52421757982297007522009-09-13T20:35:21.850-06:002009-09-13T20:35:21.850-06:00We have a lot of accumulated history, tradition, a...We have a lot of accumulated history, tradition, and procedure that favors the two party system. This alone may make it impractical to switch to a multi-party system. However, I think if we are going to get there, it will have to start with preference choice voting. (You've heard me harp on that before.) fairvote.orgBradley Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com