Outkast, excellent idea and I personally welcome the discussion. Through civil debate, a better understanding is obtained.
I shall attempt to answer your questions that you posed to the best of my abilities and also implore not only you, but others that engage to take into
consideration not only your views and mine that I am about to state, but anyone else that remarks and joins in. Through such discussion and critical
thinking we all can become better individuals and citizens.
First, I would like to present why a third party will never be viable within our current atmosphere that is the federal forum of politics. Since
seats are won by winner takes all, which puts the majority of candidates that win either Republic or Democrat. Even if a third party gets 35% of the
votes, it amounts to nothing. This derives from what is known asDuverger's Law
understanding of this allows us the ability to defeat such a system and/or take advantage of the single-member district plurality. I suggest all
those that engage here give it a read to understand that which we are operating within.
That said, lets examine your proposal.
You state you want a party that is representative of the people solely upon the majority of the collective. While this is what more and more people
are speaking out for, it fundamentally will result in majority rule, with no voice or protection for the minority. I will further explain my logic
pertaining to that statement, but there are other issues that need to be addressed before I can fully explain.
First I will discuss your oath. You state you would want to see the candidate make an oath to potential voters that they will always vote in
accordance of the constituents. This is counter intuitive to the representative system, specifically within the House of Representatives, not the
Senate. It also lacks a conviction and more importantly, the faith that they will uphold the higher Oath of Office that is supposed to hold them
accountable to the Constitution.
This leads to why I say it lacks conviction. If we have a party that solely votes based on the whim of the majority, it opens yet another avenue of
unconstitutional representation and/or legislation. As I am sure you are aware, voter ignorance is at an all time high. To highlight, let us look at
this recent study:
American Revolution Center Survey
- Half did not have even a basic understanding of historical chronology, believing that either the Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, or War of
1812 occurred before the American Revolution.
- More than 50 percent of Americans wrongly attributed the quote “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” to either
George Washington, Thomas Paine, or President Barack Obama, when it is in fact a quote from Karl Marx, author of The Communist Manifesto.
(Personal note: I find that scary.......)
This isn’t to say that the current candidates and/or representatives in place are any better. We all know their ignorance in American Civics or
possible advantage of being in power and knowing the ignorance of voters is just as appalling.
What I do like is the enforcement of the oath. Let us apply it not only to the party oath, but also their higher Oath of Office. Holding candidates
to not only party principles but also the Constitution should be instrumental of any party! I also agree it would have to be iron fist in application
and must be dealt with a heavy hand when abused or ignored.
Second, let us examine the no left/right paradigm. An attempt to shatter such would be just and would be long needed. Unfortunately, a new paradigm
will arise as that is how we associate with other like minded persons. Cohesiveness of a party lies with the very notion that we can be comfortable
knowing that other party members are in favor of similar issues and stances.
Otherwise, the party would be unfocused and be all over the political spectrum in regards to stances. I would like however to see it attempted in
hopes that my analysis is incorrect and it could be achieved!
You have identified the most likely problems that would arise correctly. The current party machines would throw anything and everything at it for
their very existence would be threatened.
Thus this leads me back to my original assertion that such a party would be detrimental to a representative republic and ultimately, the minority
voice within the chambers and around the country.
I believe the more apt name for the proposed party would be the Pure Democracy party as that is what it is. The majority rule with no regards to the
minority. Invariably the party may start out strong with voices across aisles and spectrums standing together, but eventually, the minority views
would be weeded out via the majority rule. Frustration would be rampant among those that wish their views to be put forth, but never are because
their representative only is adhering to what the majority want.
Overall, through open discussion and debate, a viable third party could form and you have started that with your discussion. There are always things
that some would like, others would hate and those that will just ignorantly spout off nonsense. Hopefully this open dialogue can bring out ideas that
can be hashed, debated and logically created to the forefront.