It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Potential Viable Third Party: The Representative Party

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
So we all hear it...we need a third party. No one really like the two party system..but the problem is that the only third party alternatives are either too extreme or too centrist. The fact is that the two party system works because they have positioned themselves on the issues in a way that covers the majority of Americans on the majority of issues. We all know most of them really don't care about the issues...but they use them to get votes.

So I was thinking...what type of third party could work without being too extreme??? The TEA Party has failed because it was just Republican-Lite...and it was absorbed by the GOP like everyone knew it would be. If a serious movement on the left emerged....the same thing would happen...it would just be absorbed by the Democrats.

The only solution I could think of is to not try to go left or right...or even center for that matter. Don't go any direction as a party at all...let the people you are representing decide.

Now let me make this clear...this is a product of brainstorming for about 5 minutes while falling asleep last night...so I'm sure there are many problems with it...but here it is anyway.




The Representative Party

Political Leaning: None

Stance on Issues: None

Candidate Requirements: Only one...vote exactly as the majority of your constituents want you to.


So how would this work?

The Job of the Party
The job of the Party is simple...maintain a website and local field offices where constituents can vote on every single issue their elected official will be voting on. Each voter in the represenatatives district or senators state will be given a secure login to the website where they can go and cast their vote for each vote the elected official is going to vote on. If they don't have access to the internet...they can go to a local field office to cast their vote. It will also be the Party's job to read each bill (not the elected official) and give an accurate and non-biased summary of it on their website for their constituents to read. They will also be available to answer any questions about the bill being voted on. Most party contributions and campaign money will go into the research of bills and the maintaining of the website and field offices and the implementation of creating polls for voting on each bill.

The Job of the Elected Official
The elected official himself really does nothing except go and cast a vote...or introduce a bill that the constituents want him to. The elected official will get one vote just like everyone else...his personal opinion on the matter will not decide his vote. When running for office...he will not express his views on any of the current political issues...he will just give an oath that he will cast his vote in accordance to what his constituents vote for. There will be no room for corruption...who is going to pay someone off who is letting the constituents decide the vote? These elected officials will not take a position on any committee or advisory board...they are just there to cast a vote.

The Oath
The Oath is simple. It will be a video taped oath by the elected official promising that he will cast his vote in accordance to how the constituents vote.

Enforcement of the Oath
If the elected official ever fails to do vote in accordance to his constituents...he is cast out of the Party...this must be ruled with an iron fist. If the elected official casts one vote not in line with his constituents...that is it...one strike and you are out. The Party will maintain a policy that in the next election they will not support this official and will run ads only showing his video taped oath to always vote in accordance to his constituents and a record of his voting highlighting where he did not vote for his constituents. If the elected official does vote in 100% accordance with his constituents...the campaign ads will be the same but highlighting that he did in fact uphold his oath. It will be in the elected officials best interest to vote in accordance to his constituents...it will basically be a guaranteed re-election. And so what is the only qualification needed to be a candidate...you have to keep your word on the one and only oath you will take.


Benefits

-Will put the power back into the hands of the people
-No Left/Right fighting
-No favors owed to anyone
-No party line voting
-No (or less potential for) corruption by lobbyists

Possible Issues

-It relies on people being honest...unfortunately this is a problem in this world
-Will only really work for Representatives and Senators...would be harder for a Presidential or Governor candidate.
-The Dems and Reps would fight it with all the money they can gather.



So I know the idea isn't perfect...that is why I am putting it out there...to see what people think. It is something that popped into my head and it seemed like a somewhat plausible solution. It may get torn to pieces...I'm fine with that...but thought I would share it to see what people think. I personally think it is a good idea...but I want to hear from everyone.

What are the problems you see with it?

What are the benefist to it?

Would you vote for someone who made an oath to vote how the majority of the district or state votes on the issue?

Do you think a third party like this is possible?

Feedback, questions, comments, rants, attacks...all are welcome.




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
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. An 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.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
As far as operating practice, what you have suggested is a democracy under the guise of a representative government. Not a good idea and not inline with what America is.

Second, you mentioned political leanings and stances as none. I don't even think it is possible for a person to not have a stance on all the major political issues.

Really the concern should not be to develop a third viable party. It should be to educate people to stop defaulting because of a party affiliation and look at each candidates merits and issues. Every politician should be an Independent. The only reason they form the parties is little to do with issues, but collective resources and power support.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
It has been proven time and time again that constituents don't want much say in what you do. They just want you to do your job, after all that's why you were elected, and why they didn't run.

In Canada, they mainly want you to vote within party lines. In America, obviously party lines are blurred a lot more so I'm not exactly sure what a majority of constituents would lean to in America (whether it be with party lines or what the representative wants). All I know is that a MAJORITY (just because you don't want it doesn't mean a majority doesn't) of people what representatives to do their jobs and leave constituents out of the decision making for the most part.

And that's where you plan fails.

Plus there's big $$$$$$$ to be made in joining one of the two parties already set and with big $$$$$$$$ behind them, they'll obviously get more exposure...



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join