Local Third parties as a proper venue for Christarchists!
I am the author of a new blog called "A New Kind of Third Party" and I am a single-issue activist with the issue being strategic state-level election reform. My writing on election reform has convinced me that a major obstacle to such reform in our system is the desires of third parties to rival the main parties. I see that as counterproductive and am trying to persuade them to affirm the use of the First Past the Post(or current election system) for Presidential/Gubernatorial/Senatorial elections. This essentially entails a submission to our political system remaining a two-party dominated system and yet, if this commitment were made, it wd open the door to the introduction of proportional representation in state legislative elections and this would allow local state third parties to gain seats and influence policy.
So the idea is to have two main parties who are ideologically more dynamic and better safeguards against either one of them getting a "permanent majority" and a whole host of small state-local third parties, like Progressive Dane in Wisconsin, bringing up new issues, increasing voter turnout and education.
This is the sort of decentralization of authority that is feasible in our world and, as a Christian, I believe that the early Christians were political outsiders, not unlike how third parties in a two-party dominated system are outsiders and so that should be our preferred location for political activism as a critical but not central part of our holistic witness to others.
dlw
So the idea is to have two main parties who are ideologically more dynamic and better safeguards against either one of them getting a "permanent majority" and a whole host of small state-local third parties, like Progressive Dane in Wisconsin, bringing up new issues, increasing voter turnout and education.
This is the sort of decentralization of authority that is feasible in our world and, as a Christian, I believe that the early Christians were political outsiders, not unlike how third parties in a two-party dominated system are outsiders and so that should be our preferred location for political activism as a critical but not central part of our holistic witness to others.
dlw
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Andy Marshall on -
As a college student who has been frustrated by the major parties' policies and general mode of operation as well as by the infighting and general ineffectiveness of American minor parties, I certainly see the benefits of concentrating on the local level. In the last decade, a number of independent and minor party state legislators have been elected, with Vermont's Progressive Party being the most successful.
As far as actual systems, I do see that changing first-past-the-post would be quite difficult, even at a state level. However, the policy of fusion, long advocated by the New Party (which I believe was once affiliated with Progressive Dane) and actively practiced to great effect by New York's minor parties, would make smaller parties much more influential. Fusion allows multiple parties to endorse the same candidate and allows that candidate to receive the votes on the ballot lines of each endorsing party. This allows minor parties, such as the Working Families Party and the Conservative Party in NY, to provide measurable support to those major party candidates who are close enough to their positions and to run their own candidates against those they disagree with. Although only legal currently in 10 states or so, fusion would allow small, local third parties to focus on their local candidates while still allow their members to collectively influence congressional, statewide, and presidential races.
-
Permalink Reply by dlw on -
I am not against the policy of fusion as it is practiced, but I understand that it is perhaps on shaky constitutional grounds.
Read the following to get a sense of where things are....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(USA)
My pov is that fusion voting is not needed for third parties to influence major parties. What is needed more is a change in the voting habits of third parties. I describe how they may leverage their ability to possibly spoil an election into more influence and a reduced likelihood of spoiling an election in my post on quasi-strategic voting.
http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-quasi-strategic-voti...
This is another way to influence other races, while focusing on local winnable races. I'd very much like to get state third parties to join together in the next two years to push for the incorporation of Proportional Representation into state legislative elections. I believe it is critical to change the rules of the game, and people's habits, to restore the US people's "trust" in their gov't. We do need to trust in part the institutions that govern us as Christians to focus more of our attention on our mandate to overcome evil thru self-sacrificial acts of love without hypocripsy.
dlw
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Grundy on -
The problem with any "party"-oriented system is that those elected rapidly become beholden to the "party" - whatever you call it - and unable to vote with their conscience or in line with the views of those who actually elected them. The system is intrinsically flawed. It doesn't matter how MANY parties there are. (In my opinion)
-
Permalink Reply by dlw on
-
If local state-level third parties remain only loosely associated w. local rule then it will be easier for them to hold their candidates (and the candidates they vote for quasi-strategically) accountable. This is because smaller parties will need less hierarchy and so the power within the org will be spread out more evenly.
It is a key feature of my idea that we truly get a new kind of third party, one that has no intent to grow to rival the main 2 parties but instead intends to move the center around which the main parties must center themselves in their ongoing struggle to capture the state....
dlw
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Grundy on
-
Small IS beautiful, but as soon as you have a "party" you have a problem - no two people will see things exactly the same, and the "capital gain" mentality and hunger for power is endemic.
The only way round this, I reckon, is for our representatives to retain independence - outside any political ideology - and therefore the ability to think and vote with their conscience. Government by consensus - debate takes longer, but it kills off the risk of mavericks and is more likely to ensure the true representation of the majority.
-
Permalink Reply by dlw on
-
To reiterate my basic point, when you have a local third party(that doesn't contest big elections), the smaller size of the party enables for community to play a stronger role than hierarchy in resolving intra-party diffs, which can then mitigate the hunger for power by spreading the responsibility for major decision-making more evenly among members. Remember power only tends to corrupt, it is absolute power that corrupts absolutely. Power does not necessarily corrupt!
As such, my system works so long as substantial portions of our country are willing to put influence above power in their participation in our political process. This is where followers of Christ play a critical role in being salt and light in our world...
dlw
dlw
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Grundy on
-
They do indeed - depending upon the perspective of those "followers of Christ".......
-
Permalink Reply by dlw on
-
I wdn't say that was the only part of the critical role followers of Christ play...
And I wd argue that one can translate Jesus' choice of the Cross over the Sword as choosing influence(what Ghandi called the politics of conversion) over power.
Jesus' message is understood in the context of OT prophecy, including Daniel's vision recorded in Daniel 2 that the various powers will give way to an unstable mix of clay(pop. democracy) and iron(aristocracy) w. multiple powers that will be overcome by an uncut stone. The politics of Jesus is that uncut stone, entailing self-sacrificial acts of love w.o. hypocripsy. That is what small third parties will be able to accomplish far better than the main two parties ever will.
dlw
dlw
-
Permalink Reply by dlw on
-
well, this idea has been on hold, but I still believe it will gain circulation.
dlw
-
Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on -
"Two parties?" You mean the pseudo-Democrat Corporatists vs the Fascist Corporatists?
If we compromise by maintaining the present electoral system for major offices, the powers that be will let us put in a more open system for minor offices? What's in it for them?--aside from not having to worry about us overthrowing their power anytime soon?
There really might not be, you know, an Answer. Just mitigate what we're given to mitigate, while looking for God to make the change in hearts & minds we'd need to change anything else.
There is one reform I could see working: If the majority of people overall could become too clearsighted to vote for what we're offered as "electable" candidates--& starting insisting on real people with honest proposals intended and reasonably expected to achieve their nominal goals. Otherwise: corruption in, corruption out.
-
Permalink Reply by dlw on
-
Yes, both are most definitely "corporatists", and yet such is a product of specific historical circumstances and the rules of the game.
Change is inevitable, and if we facilitate the making of less "radical" changes, in terms of who is in power then it'll be easier to make more "radical" changes in terms of who influences what sorts of policy reforms are being made.
What's in it for those in power? Greater intra-party discipline, the 2nd major party in a given state wd gain more, not less, power by the elimination of gerrymandering for State House of Reps elections. They wd be able to continue to control the state senate elections against upstarts. They'd get rid of extremist fringes within their party, by virtue of the greater exit threat of most members via LT parties. And they'd likely have to be somewhat less hypocritical in terms of the diff between their words and actions in a more dynamic political system.
I mean, there are people, like Obama I believe, who want to do the right thing and work w.in both the two major parties and so hopefully they will see the logic of combining winner-take-all and winner-doesn't-take-all elections to even the playing field between the two major parties, and permit outsider LT party influence and some opps to gain limited amounts of power.
Corruption ain't so easy to define objectively... Circulating the elites is a good thing, but it is best done in a via media...
dlw
About
Badge
Sites of Interest
The Jesus Manifesto is a webzine that asks "what does it mean to follow Jesus in the shadow of the Empire?"The Common Root
Christian Peacemaker Teams
Jesus Radicals
New Monasticism
Relational Tithe
The Catholic Worker Movement
Events
© 2010 Created by Mark Van Steenwyk on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
