Welcome to my forum for sharing my views on a variety of political issues. After earning my M.A. from the University of Kansas, I have sought out opportunities to continue the engaging and enlightening discussions that are part of the daily life of a Political Science Graduate Student. Outside of a classroom, it's not easy finding willing and knowledgeable participants in conversations about electoral systems, international trade agreements, the rise of socialists democracies, or the value of political parties. Perhaps this is as much of an attempt to satisfy my personal cravings to read, think, and write on these topics again, as much as it is a way for me to share what I know and understand about politics with whoever will listen. Either way, I hope what I have to say prompts you to read and think more on these important issues, and ultimately form a well-grounded system of personal political beliefs.
My goal will be to write on a new topic every week. I'll introduce the topic with a few of the FAQs on the issue, then provide some background and basic (brief) political theory, and conclude with my own thoughts and analysis. If you have a particular interest in something, let me know, I'll do the research and share my thoughts. Thanks for reading, I look forward to exploring my world with you.
Next week: Party-Animal - Taming the Political Party Beast.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Party-Animal: Taming the Political Party Beast
I had a discussion a few weeks ago with a friend who is adamantly opposed to political parties. He sees no need for them and believes that they inhibit rather than enhance the political process. It certainly seems this way at a point in time when voters rally around individuals rather than ideals/issues, and when party politics seems to breed corruption and inefficiency in government.
The original purpose of political parties was to provide a widely dispersed electorate with a schema for choosing local and national leaders, and (of course) to provide these potential leaders with a national network of fundraisers and supporters.
In this era of mass communication, and easy access to endless amounts of information, are political parties even necessary from a voter’s standpoint? When we can find out everything we want to know about a candidate, their political philosophy, their position on certain issues, and, not to mention, their personal lives, do we really need a party program to organize our political belief system? Unless you live in a closed primary state, you don't even have to be a party member to select the nominees for party candidates. Even if you are registered under a specific party few of us actually participate in party functions or are aware of dailiy party operations.
From a candidate’s standpoint is it really necessary to have a political party to support you in your attempt to grasp power? Candidates have direct access to voters in ways that have never before been possible. In 2000 Howard Dean was the first to show that fundraising through the internet can successfully fund a national campaign. While a vast majority of the funds required to finance such an undertaking are provided from party coffers, perhaps this can change?
Political Parties are organized groups of voters and potential leaders who share a common mentality in how government should be run, generally and in regards to specific policies. The main purpose of a political party, as opposed to other types of groups involved in the political process, is to obtain and maintain power. Whatever altruistic promises a party may make to win over the hearts and minds of potential voters, the primary goal is power. In a system where leadership is determined by popular elections, parties must appeal to voters in order to gain power. The theoretical advantage of political parties for voters is that parties provide and represent a clear set of political values with which voters may identify. This is intended to make the voting process simpler – a candidate from a certain party is identified with the political values represented by the party, so if a voter identifies closely with that party, they can trust the related candidate to represent their values in government. The real advantage of political parties for candidates is that parties provide a national network for fundraising and support.
These purposes may seem obsolete in a time when candidates may have more direct contact with voters and vice-versa than at any other time in history. If able to gather the millions of dollars required to fund a national campaign (or a state campaign), an individual could run sans-party essentially over the internet and through the mass media. But the real issue is not individuals connecting with individuals to garner votes. Political parties are a function of the social and competitive nature of human beings. There are several sociological factors at work: 1) we want to be around people who think and feel the same way we do about things; 2) we want to be clearly aligned with others against an opposing group; and 3) we want to be on a winning team. This may sound overly simple, but it’s an experience with which we are all familiar. We mark our territory and protect what’s important to us in politics just as in anything else.
While parties may create a system of corruption, prohibit minority voices from being heard, and squelch innovative thinking, they are a natural function of a representative government system (government in which representatives are selected by voters to make policy decisions). I propose that the problem is not with political parties themselves but in how our representatives are chosen. In suggesting that the American electoral system is flawed I do not want to begin a tired discussion about abolishing the Electoral College. Rather, I argue that by selecting representatives based on the number of votes they receive is inappropriate. Political Parties could actually represent a clear set of ideals if legislative seats were won based on the proportion of votes received by the party as a whole – Proportional Representation. For example, if the Republican Party wins 42% of the votes, they claim 42% of the seats; if the Democrats win 43% of the votes, they claim 43% of the seats; and if the Green Party wins the remaining 15% of the votes, they claim 15% of the seats. This method allows for multiple parties and thus greater representation of a variety of viewpoints in government. You cynics might immediately begin to argue that with only 15% of the seats, the Greens still have so little power they won’t be able to accomplish their agenda – but 15% could be just a start, and it’s better than nothing. Once more parties are allowed to have a significant role in government, they have greater potential for gaining more support, and voters have a better opportunity to connect with a party and a candidate that more closely represents their personal ideals. This improves voter efficacy which leads to higher voter turnout, which leads to better representation in government, and the cycle continues.
By allowing for more parties to be significantly involved in the political process, it keeps the major parties from gaining too much power. I think that we can agree that we’re all tired of hearing the same promises from both parties election cycle after election cycle, and really, they aren’t ideologically very different anyway. More and more voters are registering as independents and selecting individual candidates rather than voting down party lines. At the same time, partisan politics are becoming more prominent and more polarized. These symptoms do not so much signify illness within the parties themselves, but in a system that only allows for two major parties.
The fact of the matter is, political parties are not going anywhere – they are an organic function of representative government. If we can create a system that holds parties in check by allowing for a more significant involvement from minority voting groups through a Proportional Representation electoral system, it may successfully keep the Party Animal at bay.
Next week: Political Economy for Dummies/Bail Out? Bail ME Out!
The original purpose of political parties was to provide a widely dispersed electorate with a schema for choosing local and national leaders, and (of course) to provide these potential leaders with a national network of fundraisers and supporters.
In this era of mass communication, and easy access to endless amounts of information, are political parties even necessary from a voter’s standpoint? When we can find out everything we want to know about a candidate, their political philosophy, their position on certain issues, and, not to mention, their personal lives, do we really need a party program to organize our political belief system? Unless you live in a closed primary state, you don't even have to be a party member to select the nominees for party candidates. Even if you are registered under a specific party few of us actually participate in party functions or are aware of dailiy party operations.
From a candidate’s standpoint is it really necessary to have a political party to support you in your attempt to grasp power? Candidates have direct access to voters in ways that have never before been possible. In 2000 Howard Dean was the first to show that fundraising through the internet can successfully fund a national campaign. While a vast majority of the funds required to finance such an undertaking are provided from party coffers, perhaps this can change?
Political Parties are organized groups of voters and potential leaders who share a common mentality in how government should be run, generally and in regards to specific policies. The main purpose of a political party, as opposed to other types of groups involved in the political process, is to obtain and maintain power. Whatever altruistic promises a party may make to win over the hearts and minds of potential voters, the primary goal is power. In a system where leadership is determined by popular elections, parties must appeal to voters in order to gain power. The theoretical advantage of political parties for voters is that parties provide and represent a clear set of political values with which voters may identify. This is intended to make the voting process simpler – a candidate from a certain party is identified with the political values represented by the party, so if a voter identifies closely with that party, they can trust the related candidate to represent their values in government. The real advantage of political parties for candidates is that parties provide a national network for fundraising and support.
These purposes may seem obsolete in a time when candidates may have more direct contact with voters and vice-versa than at any other time in history. If able to gather the millions of dollars required to fund a national campaign (or a state campaign), an individual could run sans-party essentially over the internet and through the mass media. But the real issue is not individuals connecting with individuals to garner votes. Political parties are a function of the social and competitive nature of human beings. There are several sociological factors at work: 1) we want to be around people who think and feel the same way we do about things; 2) we want to be clearly aligned with others against an opposing group; and 3) we want to be on a winning team. This may sound overly simple, but it’s an experience with which we are all familiar. We mark our territory and protect what’s important to us in politics just as in anything else.
While parties may create a system of corruption, prohibit minority voices from being heard, and squelch innovative thinking, they are a natural function of a representative government system (government in which representatives are selected by voters to make policy decisions). I propose that the problem is not with political parties themselves but in how our representatives are chosen. In suggesting that the American electoral system is flawed I do not want to begin a tired discussion about abolishing the Electoral College. Rather, I argue that by selecting representatives based on the number of votes they receive is inappropriate. Political Parties could actually represent a clear set of ideals if legislative seats were won based on the proportion of votes received by the party as a whole – Proportional Representation. For example, if the Republican Party wins 42% of the votes, they claim 42% of the seats; if the Democrats win 43% of the votes, they claim 43% of the seats; and if the Green Party wins the remaining 15% of the votes, they claim 15% of the seats. This method allows for multiple parties and thus greater representation of a variety of viewpoints in government. You cynics might immediately begin to argue that with only 15% of the seats, the Greens still have so little power they won’t be able to accomplish their agenda – but 15% could be just a start, and it’s better than nothing. Once more parties are allowed to have a significant role in government, they have greater potential for gaining more support, and voters have a better opportunity to connect with a party and a candidate that more closely represents their personal ideals. This improves voter efficacy which leads to higher voter turnout, which leads to better representation in government, and the cycle continues.
By allowing for more parties to be significantly involved in the political process, it keeps the major parties from gaining too much power. I think that we can agree that we’re all tired of hearing the same promises from both parties election cycle after election cycle, and really, they aren’t ideologically very different anyway. More and more voters are registering as independents and selecting individual candidates rather than voting down party lines. At the same time, partisan politics are becoming more prominent and more polarized. These symptoms do not so much signify illness within the parties themselves, but in a system that only allows for two major parties.
The fact of the matter is, political parties are not going anywhere – they are an organic function of representative government. If we can create a system that holds parties in check by allowing for a more significant involvement from minority voting groups through a Proportional Representation electoral system, it may successfully keep the Party Animal at bay.
Next week: Political Economy for Dummies/Bail Out? Bail ME Out!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)