Saturday, November 29, 2008

5 Parties are better than 2

My opinion of John McCain changed after reading this New Yorker article, "The Fall", by David Grann. McCain in 2000 was his own man seeking reforms through force of personality and conviction. On the political spectrum, he was not too far from the more conservative leaning democrats.

For one, he doesn't want to dismantle the federal government:
"We have had regulatory agencies always to curb the abuses or potential abuses of the capitalist system. This is not a totally laissez-faire country"
For another, he complied with campaign finance reform.

For the 2008 election, he had to appeal to the conservative base, and that was the beginning of the end for him. He had cozy up to the folks who elected Bush, twice. This was not easy. In fact, McCain's top political strategist had considered running on a third party ticket, but he

"quickly concluded that the American political system made it all but impossible for such a party to win. 'This system, as it's presently set up, automatically pulls good people to a darker side of politics'".

Why are the American people left to choose from only two parties? How are two parties supposed to represent all of our interests from Brooklyn to Berkeley and all the vastness in between?

I agree that a three party system will not work because a viable third party would take votes from both sides of the spectrum. The Republicans and the Democrats would not allow that to happen.

We need 5 parties.

In a multi-party world, McCain could support campaign finance reform and all of his core beliefs without sacrifice and changing his message.

Voters would have the choice to vote based on issues important to them without being forced to clamber up on a campaign platform straining to accommodate the masses.

Granted, the federal level will be the last level to change.

The "parties" reform must take place at a local level.

Imagine, Democrats and Republicans in our city councils and state legislatures being replaced by candidates from the Green Party, Working Families Party and Libertarians.

The result would be twofold:
  1. A more representational government could eliminate the lock hold that special interests have on our political process
  2. Individuals will become more engaged in civic endeavors if they feel their specific interests are represented
You see, the more we are engaged, the more we know, the more we know, the more powerful we become. Who knows? With some hard work this nation could move from being a corporatist state to a democracy with a strong moral core. Capitalism with a conscience. The conscience being we the people, of course.

3 comments:

mgrace said...

This is why we need instant-runoff elections, where we can vote for choice No. 1, 2, and 3. That way no vote is wasted (say, on Ralph Nader), but one still isn't completely beholden to the Dem or Repubs..

Welcome to the blogosphere!

The Cauldron said...

Thanks for the post and the welcome!

The air is a little thin in the blogosphere today.

Instant-runoff elections. Promising idea. How do they work? Multiple candidates - majority rules?

mgrace said...

From Wikipediia:
Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters have one vote and rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first preference rankings, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes redistributed to the voters' next preferences among the remaining candidates. This process is repeated until one candidate has a majority of votes among candidates not eliminated. The term "instant runoff" is used because IRV is said to simulate a series of run-off elections tallied in rounds, as in an exhaustive ballot election.