Alan is up first: "The way the Constitution is written pretty much makes a two-party system a certainty."
Can you explain what you mean? Charlie Grapski taught us that the Founders intended far more than two parties, more like dozens. So why would they write a Constitution that would create only a two-party system?
Just the other day I read a cogent column on the subject, but where I am not at all sure. I will try to find it, but that will probably be tomorrow. Midnight now, and I am exhausted. I was looking forward to being an expert at a court martial next week, which would give me time to rest up and let my hands recover. But it is not to be. I suspect that the victim refused to testify.
The Founding Fathers, as they wrote the Constitution, actually assumed there would be no parties at all as we today understand the term. Within a few years, differences of opinion had led to loose groupings that we associate primarily with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, but by the time Monroe was elected even those groupings had largely disappeared. The party system as we know it today essentially dates from Andrew Jackson.
But given parties, it is the nature of the presidency that forces a two-party system. Even more than control of House or Senate, the presidency is the major political prize. So let's assume that we in fact had three major political parties. One possibility is that no party will get a majority of Electoral College votes and the election will be thrown into the House of Representatives. Probably the only way you're going to get a majority there is for two parties to combine in supporting a single candidate. And generally speaking, it would have made more sense for them to combine in supporting a single candidate before the election. Things have changed greatly over the centuries, but as things stand today groups like the Tea Party are better off working to influence a major-party primary than trying to run their own candidates.
And the same applies on the left? We're better off trying to influence the Democratic Party, even with the party establishment fighting us tooth and nail? *sigh*
Right. The Tea Party not only got a number of their own people into office, but significantly influenced the policies of the Republican establishment. Same for us. Much of the Democratic establishment is moving (somewhat) in our direction.
Maybe I'm an eternal optimist and maybe 80+ years of experience has taught me not to expect instant gratification, but I keep seeing things happening. Yes, we didn't get Howard and we didn't get Bernie. But those campaigns changed things. Medicare for all is now a popular and widely supported idea. It's one I support, which I didn't 8 years ago. There's lots of true progressives running in this year's primaries. I'm hoping to see many of them elected. And a progressive for president in 2020? Why not?
Alan is up first:
ReplyDelete"The way the Constitution is written pretty much makes a two-party system a certainty."
Can you explain what you mean? Charlie Grapski taught us that the Founders intended far more than two parties, more like dozens. So why would they write a Constitution that would create only a two-party system?
Just the other day I read a cogent column on the subject, but where I am not at all sure. I will try to find it, but that will probably be tomorrow. Midnight now, and I am exhausted. I was looking forward to being an expert at a court martial next week, which would give me time to rest up and let my hands recover. But it is not to be. I suspect that the victim refused to testify.
DeleteAlan
The Founding Fathers, as they wrote the Constitution, actually assumed there would be no parties at all as we today understand the term. Within a few years, differences of opinion had led to loose groupings that we associate primarily with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, but by the time Monroe was elected even those groupings had largely disappeared. The party system as we know it today essentially dates from Andrew Jackson.
DeleteBut given parties, it is the nature of the presidency that forces a two-party system. Even more than control of House or Senate, the presidency is the major political prize. So let's assume that we in fact had three major political parties. One possibility is that no party will get a majority of Electoral College votes and the election will be thrown into the House of Representatives. Probably the only way you're going to get a majority there is for two parties to combine in supporting a single candidate. And generally speaking, it would have made more sense for them to combine in supporting a single candidate before the election. Things have changed greatly over the centuries, but as things stand today groups like the Tea Party are better off working to influence a major-party primary than trying to run their own candidates.
And the same applies on the left? We're better off trying to influence the Democratic Party, even with the party establishment fighting us tooth and nail? *sigh*
DeleteRight. The Tea Party not only got a number of their own people into office, but significantly influenced the policies of the Republican establishment. Same for us. Much of the Democratic establishment is moving (somewhat) in our direction.
DeleteDaylight savings time comes back on March 11!!
ReplyDeleteAs memory serves me, minor parties are essentially frozen out by the nearly universal winner-takes-all system for state electoral votes. A party has to be big enough and widely-spread enough to do well in numerous states.
ReplyDeleteHere's one useful article about the Founders' intent in establishing an Electoral College. [Click] Gotta sleep.--Alan
Bill, Howard empowered me too. But I keep giving money and voting, and a whole lot of nothin' keeps happening.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm an eternal optimist and maybe 80+ years of experience has taught me not to expect instant gratification, but I keep seeing things happening. Yes, we didn't get Howard and we didn't get Bernie. But those campaigns changed things. Medicare for all is now a popular and widely supported idea. It's one I support, which I didn't 8 years ago. There's lots of true progressives running in this year's primaries. I'm hoping to see many of them elected. And a progressive for president in 2020? Why not?
DeleteYou're right. It's better to take the long view. Still, it's hard to be patient, especially when the overall situation continues on a downward trend.
Delete