Should political parties be a private organization or something else?

[Banana]

Inspired by this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=131617), I figured I'd ask everyone's opinions on this.

Personally, there is a bit of dissonance here because parties are basically a private organization that puts forth candidates on a public ballot for everyone, whether a member or not to vote on (except for primaries, which may depend on states).

Another part is that we are ultimately voting for an individual, not for a party. This is significant when we consider that the elected politician doesn't have to tow the party line at all times.

Therefore, I tend to feel that political parties should be open to anyone, and would advocate for return of blanket primary. Furthermore, I don't believe political parties has a right to freedom of association based on the simple fact that everyone ultimately will have to vote for the nominee of the party for a given position, even if they may not be the member of that party.

Mind, if we reformed the rules to something similar to European parliament where one votes for a party, and the party basically appoints the representatives on understanding that the representatives is to always tow the party's line, that would probably be different. But that's not what we have right now. Besides, I would rather vote for an individual rather than a party.

If party could be banned, it would be nice, but I know better than that. Banning political parties would only drive it underground; people like to band together and they'll just find another way to get together and vote on key issues. So I view it more as inherent in human nature, even if they can be quite base and evil.


Thoughts?

[jblosser]

What rules are you talking about? Laws?


Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[nate895]

The parties are open to everyone. You need only register as a member of a party to be a part of it (or mark it on your primary ballot). The only reason it is private is that only the members can make rules for it. Also, I think primaries should be closed because that allows for only people who consider themselves as members are able to decide who is their nominee.

I disagree with a blanket primary, as it could force situations similar to the 1991 LA Gubernatorial Election (David Duke faced off against a corrupt governor in a runoff election).

In a parliamentary system you do vote for a candidate of the party, it is just that the leader of the party is considered important because that is who the MPs elect to be PM, so you are essentially voting for a leader of a party. The leaders also hand select the candidates.

[Banana]

jblosser,

My basic premise for the freedom of association (or lack thereof) is based on that everyone gets to vote between two different private organizations' nominees for which they had no (or little) say in. Of course, this could be avoided if it was just to vote between parties which would take seats and give it to appointees in exchange of towing for the party at all times.

Right now, it just doesn't jive, IMHO.

[Banana]

bump for opinions.

[Dr.3D]

Interesting sig.... Banana


01000100011100100010111000100000010100100110111101 10111000100000010100000110000101110101011011000010 00000100110100101110010001000010111000101100001000 00010100000111001001100101011100110110100101100100 01100101011011100111010000100000011011110110011000 10000001010101011011100110100101110100011001010110 01000010000001010011011101000110000101110100011001 010111001100101110

Dr. Ron Paul M.D., President of United States.

[Banana]

Just noticed that post I must have missed before


The parties are open to everyone. You need only register as a member of a party to be a part of it (or mark it on your primary ballot). The only reason it is private is that only the members can make rules for it. Also, I think primaries should be closed because that allows for only people who consider themselves as members are able to decide who is their nominee.

Ah, but you cannot vote between parties for different positions. You have to choose one party and vote in all candidates in that party for all positions; you're SOL if you happen to like one Republican candidate for say, governor but want a Democrat for Secretary of State.

Besides, I view the hurdles of registering in a closed primary as generally bad thing- it acts as disincentive for people to jump the ship (e.g. bring competition to the party). Not saying that they won't; only that they do it too late, too little. Besides, when you consider that an average voter usually votes for same party practically the entire lifetime, it bears a reconsideration to whether we're really giving any election enough thoughts.


I disagree with a blanket primary, as it could force situations similar to the 1991 LA Gubernatorial Election (David Duke faced off against a corrupt governor in a runoff election).

Yes, that's quite a liability; the tactical voting is at maximum within a blanket primary model. But that's where I see voters having the most freedom, especially to cross the party lines and provide more competition among parties. Instead of firing up the hardcores and perform poorly in general election because the moderates have to vote between two extremes and are more likely to stay home, we actually have to look for someone who has broad appeal.


In a parliamentary system you do vote for a candidate of the party, it is just that the leader of the party is considered important because that is who the MPs elect to be PM, so you are essentially voting for a leader of a party. The leaders also hand select the candidates.

I wonder if that's just one different flavor- I was told differently in that people don't directly vote for a specific individual for a position (with possible exception of leader), as the party appoints someone to take the seat with exception that the person will always vote the party line or get kicked out.

The last part is particularly important to me- it shows (to me at least) how Americans want their cake and eating it WRT voting for an ideology or an individual. If we made it so that party had more control over the members, then I would have less of a problem keeping it an private organization run by its members as they see fit. But that's now how things are done right now. I don't want to vote for a nominee or nominees that I didn't want in first place but couldn't have my two cents because I had to choose a side in the primary, and especially not if I don't have any guarantee that they will represent the same party's ideology that I choose to support.


Interesting sig.... Banana

Dr. Ron Paul M.D., President of United States.

A lark. :) Good job.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Political parties should just be private organizations and not recognized within government.

[sratiug]

Inspired by this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=131617), I figured I'd ask everyone's opinions on this.

Personally, there is a bit of dissonance here because parties are basically a private organization that puts forth candidates on a public ballot for everyone, whether a member or not to vote on (except for primaries, which may depend on states).

Another part is that we are ultimately voting for an individual, not for a party. This is significant when we consider that the elected politician doesn't have to tow the party line at all times.

Therefore, I tend to feel that political parties should be open to anyone, and would advocate for return of blanket primary. Furthermore, I don't believe political parties has a right to freedom of association based on the simple fact that everyone ultimately will have to vote for the nominee of the party for a given position, even if they may not be the member of that party.

Mind, if we reformed the rules to something similar to European parliament where one votes for a party, and the party basically appoints the representatives on understanding that the representatives is to always tow the party's line, that would probably be different. But that's not what we have right now. Besides, I would rather vote for an individual rather than a party.

If party could be banned, it would be nice, but I know better than that. Banning political parties would only drive it underground; people like to band together and they'll just find another way to get together and vote on key issues. So I view it more as inherent in human nature, even if they can be quite base and evil.


Thoughts?

Parties should be banned as far as having anything to do with an election or a ballot, or a debate.

[Banana]

Parties should be banned as far as having anything to do with an election or a ballot, or a debate.

Technically, they don't have to do anything with elections or ballots; that's handled by the state's election board (or similar departments).

I'm not so sure about debates, though- I was under the impression that it was a private undertaking by media companies, but someone once mentioned that it was actually a joint venture with the party and the media company hosting the debate.

It also bears to remember that ban doesn't make it go away; it just drives it underground and that could be actually far more worse.


A bit of tangent since we're talking more about party structure than election laws, but I'd also note that I'm a bit on the fence about campaign financing. If we used public funding, ideally, this would remove pandering and flavor-dispensing among candidates. Of course, that goes against the libertarianism because we're using force for funding. Alternatively we could just have a voluntary voting tax- if you want to vote, you have to pay for the privilege, and that goes toward funding the candidates campaign. But that ignores the fact that there will be third parties with stakes- unions, teachers, gun owners, you name it, who will want to tell others who they would want to see in the office. Anyway, if we somehow agreed that it was to be publicly funded, then it would stand to reason that political parties shouldn't really be a private organization anymore.

[Banana]

bump for more opinions.


Edit:


Political parties should just be private organizations and not recognized within government.

That reminded me- it bears to recall that corporations are fictional entity created with privileges by the government. Therefore, 1) we can indeed petition government to redefine the corporation of political parties if we want to, 2) being a fictional entity, it does not enjoy any rights guaranteed by constitutions or any laws that a normal citizens normally enjoy. A food for thought.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

bump for more opinions.


Edit:



That reminded me- it bears to recall that corporations are fictional entity created with privileges by the government. Therefore, 1) we can indeed petition government to redefine the corporation of political parties if we want to, 2) being a fictional entity, it does not enjoy any rights guaranteed by constitutions or any laws that a normal citizens normally enjoy. A food for thought.

uh yeah. I'm aganst the corporate status as well. Let people just run their businesses in the way that suits them. How do we even know the corporate structure is the optimized structure wthin a free market? I think the free market structures would be the best. It would be based on trial and error.

[nate895]

Here is why I like political parties:

Parties, the way they are now, give organization to what would otherwise be a chaotic mess. With this blanket primary (which has been ruled unconstitutional, BTW) you have people who are voting in all sorts of weird ways, crossing party lines to nominate is one example. Also, you will wind up in many places with 2 Democrats or 2 Republicans in November because the other sides vote is split or there aren't many of them. If there are 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats running for an office in a heavily Republican district (lets 60:40 R: D) If the two Democrats and 5 Republicans split their party's votes equally you end up with 2 Democrats in the general in a heavily Republican district (20:20:12:12:12:12:12), that is obviously unfair to the 60% Republican vote.

With a parliamentary system, you have parties that win by a few percentage points getting large majorities in the parliament. Last UK election, the Labour Party got 41% of the vote to the Conservative Party's 32%, yet the split in parliament was 356:198, that is almost double.

Also, political parties let me pick who I am close to politically and get a voice with my fellow travelers as to who we want to put up for offices and what measures we want to pass or fail, and fight on one front against opponents.

[Banana]

Nate,

I fully agree with you about the merits of having a political party to bring order to what would be otherwise a messy election, and enables people with common objectives to band together; after all, it's ingrained in our human nature.

That said, if we closed up the party to members, it becomes a liability. Let us consider a Republican district where we have three candidates; a extreme rightwing Republican, a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat. In primary where only loyal members turn out, the extreme Republican will just fire up the base and win a easy victory. Now in general election, voters are left choosing between two extremes. This fails Concordat criterion, if most voters would have had preferred the moderate Republican. As a result, the general election has low turnout where moderates just throw their hands up in air and stay home while loyal fanbois vote for their candidates. Regardless of who actually wins, they don't actually win the broad support of the district.

Another part of the problem is the tendency to become too entrenched in a particular ideology. A closed primary only encourages groupthink to a point where leaders may play dirty tricks to protect their roost. Keeping the party in check gives the leaders an incentive to work for people instead of holding onto their powers with a death grip. So instead of having a vehicle for people with common ideas & goals to assemble together and make their case as one, we have to fight a organization that has hijacked the ideology and replaced with their own ideology.

[sratiug]

Technically, they don't have to do anything with elections or ballots; that's handled by the state's election board (or similar departments).

I'm not so sure about debates, though- I was under the impression that it was a private undertaking by media companies, but someone once mentioned that it was actually a joint venture with the party and the media company hosting the debate.

It also bears to remember that ban doesn't make it go away; it just drives it underground and that could be actually far more worse.


A bit of tangent since we're talking more about party structure than election laws, but I'd also note that I'm a bit on the fence about campaign financing. If we used public funding, ideally, this would remove pandering and flavor-dispensing among candidates. Of course, that goes against the libertarianism because we're using force for funding. Alternatively we could just have a voluntary voting tax- if you want to vote, you have to pay for the privilege, and that goes toward funding the candidates campaign. But that ignores the fact that there will be third parties with stakes- unions, teachers, gun owners, you name it, who will want to tell others who they would want to see in the office. Anyway, if we somehow agreed that it was to be publicly funded, then it would stand to reason that political parties shouldn't really be a private organization anymore.

The Presidential Debate Commission is a joint scam of the Republican and Democratic parties.

[Banana]

It's coordinated among both parties? Wow. I'll have to read up on that. Thanks for that tidbit.

[nate895]

Nate,

I fully agree with you about the merits of having a political party to bring order to what would be otherwise a messy election, and enables people with common objectives to band together; after all, it's ingrained in our human nature.

That said, if we closed up the party to members, it becomes a liability. Let us consider a Republican district where we have three candidates; a extreme rightwing Republican, a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat. In primary where only loyal members turn out, the extreme Republican will just fire up the base and win a easy victory. Now in general election, voters are left choosing between two extremes. This fails Concordat criterion, if most voters would have had preferred the moderate Republican. As a result, the general election has low turnout where moderates just throw their hands up in air and stay home while loyal fanbois vote for their candidates. Regardless of who actually wins, they don't actually win the broad support of the district.

Another part of the problem is the tendency to become too entrenched in a particular ideology. A closed primary only encourages groupthink to a point where leaders may play dirty tricks to protect their roost. Keeping the party in check gives the leaders an incentive to work for people instead of holding onto their powers with a death grip. So instead of having a vehicle for people with common ideas & goals to assemble together and make their case as one, we have to fight a organization that has hijacked the ideology and replaced with their own ideology.

1) Moderate politicians are the worst thing to ever come to politics. They stick their fingers in the wind in order to decide what should happen in government (re: John McCain).

2) If the moderates are dissatisfied, make their own party and run their own guy.

3) I have yet to see a situation where this has occurred before. Most primaries are fought and won legitimately, with only the rare exception of parties endorsing a primary candidate. In order to get around that I would suggest banning parties (or their official heads) from endorsing one candidate until after the primary is over (in the case of Presidential nomination, when your state has voted).

[Banana]

1) Moderate politicians are the worst thing to ever come to politics. They stick their fingers in the wind in order to decide what should happen in government (re: John McCain).

Not that Strom Thrumond or Eugene McGovern would be any better?

I think we're talking about a different definition- if by moderation we mean flip-flopper who can't stick to principles, then they're worst politicians, *regardless* of the party they're in. But if by moderation, we are talking about advocating for a change or status quo through small and reasonable steps, then that's usually what many people like. People generally are repelled by extremism, even if it's extremism for a right cause.


2) If the moderates are dissatisfied, make their own party and run their own guy.

Only if that made sense. Right now, we have two party system because of WTA's inherent polarization, leaving everyone else out while two minorities fight for the control. This would require a reform in how we vote to make this a feasible options.

Even then, I strongly think that political parties should be ultimately a vehicle for organizing together people of common beliefs but never an apparatus for machine politics that stamps an particular brand of ideology on the candidates. Thus, ideally (IMHO) parties should be disinterested and dispassionate about who will be nominee- that is not the case we have right now with RNC crowning McCain as the presumptive nominee and reports of party leaders suppressing RPRs out of misguided belief that we are RINOs and threaten their integrity.


3) I have yet to see a situation where this has occurred before. Most primaries are fought and won legitimately, with only the rare exception of parties endorsing a primary candidate. In order to get around that I would suggest banning parties (or their official heads) from endorsing one candidate until after the primary is over (in the case of Presidential nomination, when your state has voted).

As I just mentioned, there were reports of precinct chairs kicking out RPRs or refusing to play by their own rulebook. Seems to me that the officials are a mite too biased to be entrusted with impartiality. Right now, we're fighting to express our beliefs in so and so against neocons who want to stay in power. This shouldn't have happened but it did happened.

Furthermore, remember that banning only makes it go underground. It won't stop officials from wanting to push a particular horse in the race unless we can remove any incentives for doing so. And I believe that the disincentive depends largely on having to appeal to broad base instead of just firing up the extreme fringes, and that argues for a open primary, even a blanket primary, no party registration, loyalty oath or whatever.

[orafi]

I think political parties should be nonexistant.

[Banana]

I think political parties should be nonexistant.

Pray tell, how would you accomplish this? If by a decree that there will be no parties, how will you enforce this? Especially when people bands together secretly to conspire to push a candidate?

[Banana]

bump for opinionation.

[Banana]

Yet another reason to why I question whether political parties truly should have right to association if they are supposed to be the vehicle of people's expression of opinions. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=132403)

[nate895]

Yet another reason to why I question whether political parties truly should have right to association if they are supposed to be the vehicle of people's expression of opinions. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=132403)

That is illegal to do, even by party rules. But, if the party wants to make a rule to exclude us, I dare them to see what may happen when the full wrath of the Ron Paul movement descends on their party.

[yongrel]

Privatized.

[Banana]

Well, I did assume that it was already illegal under the rules yet this isn't an isolated case of chairman going territorial on his li'l sandbox. Heck, RNC is already plugging for John on their website because he's presumptive nominee despite Ron Paul still in race (and I doubt that Ron gave his permission for RNC to go ahead as per RNC's rules).

But it just shows that it's just a piece of paper to them, so it'd do little good, now and again in future. Hence my view that we should remove all incentives for party hacks to morph into hateful, greedy and pompous powermongers by making it a open season and therefore near impossible for one person to hold onto power in any meaningful terms.