Adam Smith from the Wealth of Nationspublished in 1776
Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.
......... snip......
It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects.
Much like Alice's cat - U.S. political parties have disappeared - leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very individualistic politicians.
Anonymous Coward wrote: This is not the case. Politicians must make alliances... and obey the dictates of party leaders to get anything done.
-------------
If are thinking from the politicians perspective you are correct, but from the voters perspective all or most of those decisions and actions happen after the election, or - in private.
Prior to the election politicians are primarily independent or organized by money. It is true that our glorious National Committees, etc. can choose which those politicians - that have gained general election ballot status by being elected in their parties primaries - to fund. However, those conditions are not made public. If you know a source please tell me.
Quote from 1927 Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail.
Source: American Parties and Elections, by Edward Sait
published 1927 (Page 174)
Found in The tyranny of the two-party system / Lisa Jane Disch c2002
"What is it about American society that forces them to elect every state official?"
---------------
One Reason
From the voters perspective the U.S. doesn't have political parties - only political labels.
Political parties in the U.S. used to be organizations that could field politicians that reflected the organizations interests, and would carry the organizations name on the ballot. By requiring political parties to nominate by publicly funded primaries, most U.S. states now require nomination by primary elections in each of our single member districts. The private member based political parties technically still exist, but now have no control over their own name! While I don't claim that real political party platforms are all that honest, we vote for many different individual politicians who are not all that honest either.. One elected politician can't pass a law! Heck: One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee!
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded, after the votes are counted, are not very clear in either major party. Not clear to the voter anyway.
I_Voter
Much like Alice's cat - U.S. political parties have disappeared - leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very individualistic politicians.
I didn't bother blocking ads in the past. It didn't seem that important to me. However, I run distributed computing (BOINC) applications. One day, after exiting BOINC, and with six browser pages open, noticed that task manager indicated a 15% CPU load.
Seriously. I think this is great as it gives at least some hope to the prospect of getting third parties...
-----------------
I am still waiting for a democratic (small d ) blog. The U.S. voters have very little ability to influence the government no matter how they vote.
One Point
Our legislative political system (plurality elections) resembles a soda vending machine with only two brands of soda, - and it takes your money (wastes your vote) about 40 percent of the time! It is possible to find that type of voting machine with more products (3rd parties), but then there is an even greater probability that it will waste your vote!
Apparently U.S. politicians use the runoff system for leadership elections. They know what is good for the voter when they are the voter.
Another Point
Next U.S. voters might want to examine what is meant by a political party as opposed to a political label.
Political parties in the U.S. used to be organizations that could field politicians that reflected the organizations interests, and would carry the organizations name on the ballot. By requiring political parties to nominate by publicly funded primaries, the state can specify the requirements for ballot access for the primary elections. The private member based political parties technically still exist, but now have no control over their own name! That is why in the U.S.- party platforms are, relative to most other nations, mostly meaningless jokes. And remember: One elected politician can't pass a law! Heck: One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee!
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded, after the votes are counted, are not very clear in either major party. Not clear to the voter anyway.
I_Voter
From The voters perspective
Much like Alice's cat - political parties have disappeared, leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very individualistic politicians.
because lets face it, there is a good chance the Republicans will not be in power...
Willy
----
WhoooRay!
New Democratic and Republican candidates are not be completely the same! They are associated with different rumors!
If a potential political candidate is rumored to admire the rule of wealth - they will register for a Democrat label and run in the Democratic party primary. If the potential candidate is suspected of warm feelings for the divine rule of Kings - they will register for a Republican label and run in the Republican party primary. I believe it's called managing your image. Our modern politicians are professionals.
I don't know how many people are aware of the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively reduced the original powers of the Jury. In our founding fathers original views, the basic defense of our U.S. Constitutional rights was meant to be the jury!
( ie The people, - as opposed to the Supreme Court!)
Note: I have posted this same material on Slashdot 3 times in the last week. I think I will change my user name to MrDupe
My Quick and Dirty Background
1. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83 -
The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty.
2. Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger! -
"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution." If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."
3. One Historical Example: A Glorious Tradition of Free Speech
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws, or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
4. Later "Judicial Refinements."
A U.S. Supreme Court decision, (Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) in 1895, declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of the decision. This subject is explored more fully in the book, - JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine,
pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad.
5. More recently - California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms, under certain special situations, to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly! These actions have been examined (2001) by the California Supreme Court, and found acceptable based on the 1895 Supreme Court decision.
The ability of the Judge to "judge" the reasoning processes of seated jurors, under admittedly rare situations, is only true in California.at the present time. However: IMO You can be sure it will be extended to other states and with less narrow requirements over time. The ability of a juror to vote his or her conscience is an insult to an unrepresentative government's power. The Supreme Court is as about as unrepresentative as you can get, so they will not likely stand in the way of any legislative act
The basic defense of our U.S. constitutional
rights was meant to be
the jury.
( ie The people as opposed to the Supreme Court!)
BACKGROUND
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist
Paper No. 83
-
The
friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional]
convention,
if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set
upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it
consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to
liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free
government.
For
my own part, the more
the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the
more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and
it
would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves
to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or
how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the
oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny
of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this
kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all
are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly
aspect to liberty.
Thomas
Jefferson's views
were much stronger! -
"I
consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a
government can be held to the principles of it's constitution."
If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our
representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from
a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were
I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the
Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to
leave them out of the Legislative."
One Example: A Glorious Tradition of Free Speech
In 1735, jury nullification
decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His
newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The
current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false)
criticizing public officials, laws, or the government in general. The
jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published;
the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
Later "Judicial Refinements."
A U.S. Supreme Court decision, (Sparf
and Hansen v. U.S.) in 1895, declared (in legal
principle)
that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the
immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of the
decision.
This
subject is explored more fully in the book, -
JURY
NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine, pub 1998, by
Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad.
More recently - California has allowed judges to enter jury
rooms,
under certain special situations, to evaluate if the
jury is reasoning properly! These actions have been examined
(2001)
by the California
Supreme Court, and found acceptable based on the 1895 Supreme
Court decision.
Jack
References for the political jury.
1. The best! But can you find it? JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine,
A Cato Institute Book, pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press,
Author: Clay S. Conrad
2. WE THE JURY: The Jury System and the Ideal of
Democracy,
by Jeffery Abramson, professor of politics and legal studies
at Brandeis University, published 2000, Basic Books
I think that both the defense and prosecuting attorney's could always replace something like three properly seated jurors, but the judge lacked any challenges. Today the judge usually has limitless challenges.
IMO: That situation stems from the 1895 decision. Also defense lawyers could argue nullification and they still can in England.
Rumpole of the Bailey Defense -
Yes my client did it! So what! Does any member of the jury really believe my client deserves to be punished?
IMO: The separation of powers only slows things down. All three branches can agree on one thing - those pesky citizens get in the way, and cause problems.
While I will accept that the SOP structure slows down radical change, it doesn't stop change. We should remember that it works both ways! People standing on a steep hill of tar will be less likely to slide down, but if they do slide down then getting back up is harder.
The following is my favorite example of slow but radical "constitutional" change.
Our (U.S.) basic defense of constitutional rights was meant to be the jury.
BACKGROUND
Alexander Hamilton views in Federalist Paper No. 83
The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty.,
Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger!
"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution."
If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."
A Glorious Tradition
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
A Slight Modification,
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1895 declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of decision, however California is now allowing judges to enter jury rooms to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly under certain special situations. This subject is explored more fully in the book, JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine, pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
A Slight Modification,
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1895 declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of decision, however California is now allowing judges to enter jury rooms to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly under certain special situations. This subject is explored more fully in the book, JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine, pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad
BACKGROUND
Our (U.S.) basic defense of constitutional rights was meant to be the jury.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83
The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty.,
Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger!
"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution." If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."
Your problem is a lack of knowledge of international political systems. I would suggest a few areas for study.
Proportional Representation (Used in at least one legislative house by the majority of democracies.): It increases voter choice and removes many of those wasted votes that fail to elect the voters choice of representative - to the legislature. Also eliminates the gerrymandering that effectively dis-enfranchises many voters.
Reduce the power of the Supreme Court or make it more responsive to the voters representatives. This would bring the power of our voters elected representatives to a level comparable with most other nations.
Majority election of our Senate. Our current system reduces the power of the majority of the voters.
Personally, for reasons that haven't mentioned, I would classify our U.S, "democracy" as closer to Iran's form of government than Sweden's or Brazil's.
Great Quote from 1927
"Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which
finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be
voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs
or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how
candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall
belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have
regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
SOURCE: American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, Published 1927 (Page 174)
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
A Slight Modification
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1895 declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of decision, however California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly under certain special situations. This subject is explored more fully in the book, JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine , pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad
I've often heard the "it doesn't matter which major party I vote for, they're the same" line. Baloney and Fiddlesticks! Just a weak rationalization from those too lazy to exercise their responsibilities as citizens I say.
However, would you agree with the following sentence?
Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered,- the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
IMO: That was a excellent post Firethorn. I had listened to much longer general arguments along those lines - without any statistics.
I assume that energy sources are of overwhelming importance to human society. An extreme example would be escaping the swelling sun. A more minor example would be human life expectancy greater than 50 years.
I leaned toward an energy mix that included (on earth) nuclear power, but now I feel more confident about my judgment.
"In the US it's either one of the 2, no coalitions outside a single party."
Since Bush is our prime minister, and both legislatures are dominated by Democrats, there will be a need for political compromise, if any laws are to be passed over a Bush veto.
I was ignoring the difference between the U.S. and a parliamentary system. My main point was that there is no national organization with the authority to decide who can run as a either a Democrat or Republican on a primary ballot, since in most states it is the individuals choice to decide what party primary election they wish to enter. However, it s true that there are forces that bring unity to our political "parties."
The Committee chairs have significant power in the lower legislature. They love keep budget bills secret until a few hours before the scheduled vote. Also, there are national committees that distribute money from donors that prefer one-stop-shopping. That in a force for unity!
I was just trying to point out that in the U.S., elected politicians could just as easily be described as independent entrepreneurs, instead of members of a political party.
In the U.S., political promises tend to be too vague or untrustworthy to be taken very seriously by the voters. I know that most citizens of other nations probably feel the same way but the U.S. is exceptional.
Our national political parties are prohibited from enforcing party platforms, because almost every U.S. state requires nomination by primary election. One of the reasons this was done originally was to limit the ability of immigrants and the urban poor from using the right of association effectively in politics. Later the concept was extended to most state ballot access laws.
Quote from 1927
Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail.
Page 174 American Parties and Elections, pub 1927 by Edward Sait
Not only are we a two-party system, we are really a two-fake-party system!
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded after the votes are counted are not very clear in either major party.
Most other nations have private member based national political parties, whose members directly or indirectly, write and approve an enforceable political platform that gives political unity to the party.
People unfamiliar with the U.S. may be unaware the U.S. does not have national political parties, we only have national committees. The DNC and RNC collect money at the national level. Besides providing the convenience of one-stop shopping for donors, I assume that the DNC/RNC can provide a significant amount of party unity by controlling who gets their money. I also assume that any unity they provide would tend to be approved of by the donors. It should also be understood that most major donors contribute to both parties. I presume this promotes bipartisanship.
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded, after the votes are counted, are not very clear in either major party.
Dishonesty and misleading rhetoric are naturally common in politics, but I believe that the U.S. political system is highly organized to reward politicians that worship wealth and lie like hell.
In the U.S. a political term like "conservative government" is just rhetoric. Only money actually gets to say anything, and it often speaks in private.
Most other nations have private member based national political parties, whose members directly or indirectly, write and approve an enforceable political platform that gives political unity to the party. Conversely, the DNC's and RNC's primarily collect money at the national level.
Most people are probably aware that the majority of U.S.states nominate by primary election. This movement started sometime after 1880. One of the reasons this was done originally was to limit the ability of immigrants and the urban poor from using the right of association effectively in politics. The stated desire was to "Break the Political Machine," or "Destroy the Political Bosses." Later the concept was extended to the state level. Remember, one elected politician can't pass a law. One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee! Technically the private member based political parties still exist, but now have no real control over their own name!
This is in addition to the limited level of competition provided by our "single-member district system."
Slashdot Mirror
Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.
It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects.
(Book_Four*Chapter_VIII*Conclusion_of_the_Mercantile_System)
Much like Alice's cat - U.S. political parties have disappeared - leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very individualistic politicians.
Anonymous Coward wrote: ... and obey the dictates of party leaders to get anything done.
This is not the case. Politicians must make alliances
-------------
If are thinking from the politicians perspective you are correct, but from the voters perspective all or most of those decisions and actions happen after the election, or - in private.
Prior to the election politicians are primarily independent or organized by money. It is true that our glorious National Committees, etc. can choose which those politicians - that have gained general election ballot status by being elected in their parties primaries - to fund. However, those conditions are not made public. If you know a source please tell me.
Quote from 1927
Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail.
Source: American Parties and Elections, by Edward Sait published 1927 (Page 174)
Found in The tyranny of the two-party system / Lisa Jane Disch c2002
"What is it about American society that forces them to elect every state official?"
---------------
One Reason
From the voters perspective the U.S. doesn't have political parties - only political labels.
Political parties in the U.S. used to be organizations that could field politicians that reflected the organizations interests, and would carry the organizations name on the ballot. By requiring political parties to nominate by publicly funded primaries, most U.S. states now require nomination by primary elections in each of our single member districts. The private member based political parties technically still exist, but now have no control over their own name! While I don't claim that real political party platforms are all that honest, we vote for many different individual politicians who are not all that honest either.. One elected politician can't pass a law! Heck: One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee!
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded, after the votes are counted, are not very clear in either major party. Not clear to the voter anyway.
I_Voter
Much like Alice's cat - U.S. political parties have disappeared - leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very individualistic politicians.
I didn't bother blocking ads in the past. It didn't seem that important to me. However, I run distributed computing (BOINC) applications. One day, after exiting BOINC, and with six browser pages open, noticed that task manager indicated a 15% CPU load.
addios animated ads!
-----------------
I am still waiting for a democratic (small d ) blog. The U.S. voters have very little ability to influence the government no matter how they vote.
One Point
Our legislative political system (plurality elections) resembles a soda vending machine with only two brands of soda, - and it takes your money (wastes your vote) about 40 percent of the time! It is possible to find that type of voting machine with more products (3rd parties), but then there is an even greater probability that it will waste your vote!
Apparently U.S. politicians use the runoff system for leadership elections. They know what is good for the voter when they are the voter.
Another Point
Next U.S. voters might want to examine what is meant by a political party as opposed to a political label.
Political parties in the U.S. used to be organizations that could field politicians that reflected the organizations interests, and would carry the organizations name on the ballot. By requiring political parties to nominate by publicly funded primaries, the state can specify the requirements for ballot access for the primary elections. The private member based political parties technically still exist, but now have no control over their own name! That is why in the U.S.- party platforms are, relative to most other nations, mostly meaningless jokes. And remember: One elected politician can't pass a law! Heck: One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee!
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded, after the votes are counted, are not very clear in either major party. Not clear to the voter anyway.
I_Voter
From The voters perspective
Much like Alice's cat - political parties have disappeared, leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very individualistic politicians.Willy
----
WhoooRay!
New Democratic and Republican candidates are not be completely the same! They are associated with different rumors!
If a potential political candidate is rumored to admire the rule of wealth - they will register for a Democrat label and run in the Democratic party primary. If the potential candidate is suspected of warm feelings for the divine rule of Kings - they will register for a Republican label and run in the Republican party primary. I believe it's called managing your image. Our modern politicians are professionals.
I don't know how many people are aware of the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively reduced the original powers of the Jury. In our founding fathers original views, the basic defense of our U.S. Constitutional rights was meant to be the jury!
( ie The people, - as opposed to the Supreme Court!)
Note: I have posted this same material on Slashdot 3 times in the last week. I think I will change my user name to MrDupe
My Quick and Dirty Background
1. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83 -
The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty.
2. Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger! -
"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution." If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."
3. One Historical Example: A Glorious Tradition of Free Speech
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws, or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
4. Later "Judicial Refinements."
A U.S. Supreme Court decision, (Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) in 1895, declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of the decision. This subject is explored more fully in the book, - ,
JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine
pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad.
5. More recently - California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms, under certain special situations, to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly! These actions have been examined (2001) by the California Supreme Court, and found acceptable based on the 1895 Supreme Court decision.
The ability of the Judge to "judge" the reasoning processes of seated jurors, under admittedly rare situations, is only true in California.at the present time. However: IMO You can be sure it will be extended to other states and with less narrow requirements over time. The ability of a juror to vote his or her conscience is an insult to an unrepresentative government's power. The Supreme Court is as about as unrepresentative as you can get, so they will not likely stand in the way of any legislative act
( ie The people as opposed to the Supreme Court!)
BACKGROUND
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83 -The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty.
Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger! -
" I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution. " If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: " Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative. "
One Example: A Glorious Tradition of Free Speech
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws, or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
Later "Judicial Refinements."
A U.S. Supreme Court decision, (Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) in 1895, declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of the decision. This subject is explored more fully in the book, -
More recently - California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms, under certain special situations, to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly! These actions have been examined (2001) by the California Supreme Court, and found acceptable based on the 1895 Supreme Court decision.JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine,
pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad.
Jack
References for the political jury.
1. The best! But can you find it?
JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine
A Cato Institute Book, pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press,
Author: Clay S. Conrad
2.
WE THE JURY: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy
by Jeffery Abramson, professor of politics and legal studies
at Brandeis University, published 2000, Basic Books
I think that both the defense and prosecuting attorney's could always replace something like three properly seated jurors, but the judge lacked any challenges. Today the judge usually has limitless challenges.
IMO: That situation stems from the 1895 decision. Also defense lawyers could argue nullification and they still can in England.
Rumpole of the Bailey Defense -
Yes my client did it! So what! Does any member of the jury really believe my client deserves to be punished?
IMO: The separation of powers only slows things down. All three branches can agree on one thing - those pesky citizens get in the way, and cause problems.
While I will accept that the SOP structure slows down radical change, it doesn't stop change. We should remember that it works both ways! People standing on a steep hill of tar will be less likely to slide down, but if they do slide down then getting back up is harder.
The following is my favorite example of slow but radical "constitutional" change.
Our (U.S.) basic defense of constitutional rights was meant to be the jury.
BACKGROUND
Alexander Hamilton views in Federalist Paper No. 83
The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty.,
Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger!
"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution."
If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."
A Glorious Tradition
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
A Slight Modification,
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1895 declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of decision, however California is now allowing judges to enter jury rooms to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly under certain special situations. This subject is explored more fully in the book, JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine, pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
A Slight Modification,
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1895 declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of decision, however California is now allowing judges to enter jury rooms to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly under certain special situations. This subject is explored more fully in the book, JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine, pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad
BACKGROUND
Our (U.S.) basic defense of constitutional rights was meant to be the jury.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83
The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty.,
Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger!
"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution." If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."
Your problem is a lack of knowledge of international political systems. I would suggest a few areas for study.
Proportional Representation (Used in at least one legislative house by the majority of democracies.): It increases voter choice and removes many of those wasted votes that fail to elect the voters choice of representative - to the legislature. Also eliminates the gerrymandering that effectively dis-enfranchises many voters.
Reduce the power of the Supreme Court or make it more responsive to the voters representatives. This would bring the power of our voters elected representatives to a level comparable with most other nations.
Majority election of our Senate. Our current system reduces the power of the majority of the voters.
Personally, for reasons that haven't mentioned, I would classify our U.S, "democracy" as closer to Iran's form of government than Sweden's or Brazil's.
Great Quote from 1927
"Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
SOURCE: American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, Published 1927 (Page 174)
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
A Slight Modification
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1895 declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of decision, however California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly under certain special situations. This subject is explored more fully in the book, JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine , pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad
However, would you agree with the following sentence?
Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered,- the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
IMO: That was a excellent post Firethorn. I had listened to much longer general arguments along those lines - without any statistics.
I assume that energy sources are of overwhelming importance to human society. An extreme example would be escaping the swelling sun. A more minor example would be human life expectancy greater than 50 years.
I leaned toward an energy mix that included (on earth) nuclear power, but now I feel more confident about my judgment.
Since Bush is our prime minister, and both legislatures are dominated by Democrats, there will be a need for political compromise, if any laws are to be passed over a Bush veto.
I was ignoring the difference between the U.S. and a parliamentary system. My main point was that there is no national organization with the authority to decide who can run as a either a Democrat or Republican on a primary ballot, since in most states it is the individuals choice to decide what party primary election they wish to enter. However, it s true that there are forces that bring unity to our political "parties."
The Committee chairs have significant power in the lower legislature. They love keep budget bills secret until a few hours before the scheduled vote. Also, there are national committees that distribute money from donors that prefer one-stop-shopping. That in a force for unity!
I was just trying to point out that in the U.S., elected politicians could just as easily be described as independent entrepreneurs, instead of members of a political party.
Our national political parties are prohibited from enforcing party platforms, because almost every U.S. state requires nomination by primary election. One of the reasons this was done originally was to limit the ability of immigrants and the urban poor from using the right of association effectively in politics. Later the concept was extended to most state ballot access laws.
Quote from 1927
Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail.
Page 174 American Parties and Elections, pub 1927 by Edward Sait
Not only are we a two-party system, we are really a two-fake-party system!
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded after the votes are counted are not very clear in either major party.
People unfamiliar with the U.S. may be unaware the U.S. does not have national political parties, we only have national committees. The DNC and RNC collect money at the national level. Besides providing the convenience of one-stop shopping for donors, I assume that the DNC/RNC can provide a significant amount of party unity by controlling who gets their money. I also assume that any unity they provide would tend to be approved of by the donors. It should also be understood that most major donors contribute to both parties. I presume this promotes bipartisanship.
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded, after the votes are counted, are not very clear in either major party.
Dishonesty and misleading rhetoric are naturally common in politics, but I believe that the U.S. political system is highly organized to reward politicians that worship wealth and lie like hell.
In the U.S. a political term like "conservative government" is just rhetoric. Only money actually gets to say anything, and it often speaks in private.
Most other nations have private member based national political parties, whose members directly or indirectly, write and approve an enforceable political platform that gives political unity to the party. Conversely, the DNC's and RNC's primarily collect money at the national level.
Most people are probably aware that the majority of U.S.states nominate by primary election. This movement started sometime after 1880. One of the reasons this was done originally was to limit the ability of immigrants and the urban poor from using the right of association effectively in politics. The stated desire was to "Break the Political Machine," or "Destroy the Political Bosses." Later the concept was extended to the state level. Remember, one elected politician can't pass a law. One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee! Technically the private member based political parties still exist, but now have no real control over their own name!
This is in addition to the limited level of competition provided by our "single-member district system."