HJ 24 (Repealing the 22nd Amendment)

[OTM]

First of all, I wanted to let you know how much I enjoy reading Permanent Damage every week. It's always a good mix of real world and comic news, a spoonful of sugar helping the medicine go down. :o

I wanted to clear up something I read in your column this week, though - this is a copy of the bill you spoke of that was going to repeal the 22nd Amendment:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)

HJ 24 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

------------------------------

The 22nd amendment as reprinted on the FindLaw website reads as follows.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.


Annotations
Limitation of Presidential Terms

''By reason of the lack of a positive expression upon the subject of the tenure of the office of President, and by reason of a well-defined custom which has risen in the past that no President should have more than two terms in that office, much discussion has resulted upon this subject. Hence it is the purpose of this . . . [proposal] . . . to submit this question to the people so they, by and through the recognized processes, may express their views upon this question, and if they shall so elect, they may . . . thereby set at rest this problem.''


Now, the problem is that four of the five senators listed above as sponsoring this bill are Democrats -

Hoyer:
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H1681103
Berman:
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H0421103
Sensenbrenner:
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H...8c8d5a59e4caf97
Sabo:
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H2070103
Pallone:
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H2361103

Rep. Hoyer is the Whip of the Democratic party, and Rep. Berman was the Democratic Majority Leader in California prior to becoming its state representative - not exactly "some of the most right wing representatives in the House".

Interestingly enough, Rep. Hoyer's name was on the bill when it was attempted back in 1999, as well, along with Reps. Frank and Serrano...
Serrano:
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H2711103
Frank:
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H1751103

As you can see here, it isn't the Right crossing their fingers on this one:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000280.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/919592/posts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=printer_format&om=29014&forum=DCForumID60
http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20030605-020900-2841r
^ The last one is especially funny - Clinton is OH SO SUBTLE. ;)


So yeah, your theory about another Clinton presidency is probably a whole lot more likely than another four years of Bush...

[WatsonGlenn]

That is the most well researched and annotated post I have ever seen. Well done.

four of the five senators listed above as sponsoring this bill are Democrats -

The Republicans will still be blamed but thanks.

[RichSKelly]

So in the Bush (Jr.) vs. Clinton (Bill) campaign of 2008 who wins?

Honestly I would imagine this would scare the hell out of the repubs as anyone who tracks presidential job approval/ favorable/unfavorable ratings would see.

[bartl]

So in the Bush (Jr.) vs. Clinton (Bill) campaign of 2008 who wins?
Well I can tell you who loses: The United States.

[RichSKelly]

I agree and am not advocating repeal of the amendment. I have always been upset at the amendment's arbitrary nature. It bothers me it was done in such a knee jerk fashion.
Really, if term limits are right for the white house, why are they wrong for the House, Senate, Speaker, Majority Leader and every other position of power in the US?
Seems to me if the idea is right in principle its right. I understande people are going to say, well the president is the most powerful and therefore the most neccessary to limit but I don't buy it. What really happened is one party got all pissy cause the other guys had an incredible run (due to, probably, the most extraordinary series of events over any sustained period in our history) and cried like a baby. I think the other side got a little paranoid it could happen to them and they passed a new rule for all the wrong reasons.
The perfect compliment to my argument is 1994's Contract on America which promised to bring Congressional term limits and then pretended like they had never even heard such an idea when the platform actually worked.
Ultimately, if we are going to sing the praises of the 22nd amendment I think we better have a good reason why we don't extend it to all elected federal offices.

[Dennis]

i like bill clinton. it wouldn't bother me if he was president for life. seriously. where's the harm? if he does a bad job in his 5th or 6th term, then vote him out and vote in george p bush or whoever.

does the wwe limit the time a title holder can hold the belt? hell no. let the best we have have a chance.

[Inkthinker]

You know, I'd have less problem with this if we had an election system like Parliament, where you can call for a new President at any time during their term (I think that's the way it works, someone British can explain it better).

I'd still have a problem with this, though, because frankly I don't trust these new totally digital voting systems. There's no transparency, and that means it's all too easy to subvert the system when it's as large as ours.

[WatsonGlenn]

Ultimately, if we are going to sing the praises of the 22nd amendment I think we better have a good reason why we don't extend it to all elected federal offices.

Here is my reason. George Washington thought it was a good idea. So did most every president until Roosevelt.

Second, its an exhausting job. I would be suspicious of anyone that wanted to do it for more than 8 years.

Do you really think Clinton would like to be president again because he thinks it would be good for the country? I don't.

[outlander78]

I do believe he'd take over the leadership role again, given the chance, for the good of the country. You folks need a strong leader, and he seems to be your best at the moment. I wish you had more to chose from, but you don't seem to, which is very strange given the nature of your country (that's meant as a compliment).

[RichSKelly]

First, I am not opposed to the amendment, I just am dissatisfied with why we have it.

Second just because George Washington said so is not much of a reason as far as I am concerned. For one thing he also said no foreign alliances and giving the world events of 1918-1939 that seems like some extraordinarily bad advice.
Also, if GW and the rest of the FF (founding fathers, not fantastic four) felt so strongly about it, seems like they would have put it in the rules right from the get go. Sure, GW felt 8 was enough but the 8 year tradition was working great so why do we need a rule.

Next, you would question anyone who would want the job for more than 8. We all would, and then as an electorate we would decide if we trust the guy. If you did not know, the single biggest issue of the 1940 election was FDR's violating the tradition. America, before Pearl Harbor I might add, decided they trusted him enough to reelect him. Overwhelmingly.
On that note, we have to look at FDR as the model since he is the only 2+ term Prez. I would say even the biggest FDR hater would openly acknowledge the "damage" (from thier point of view) was virtually entirely in place by 1941 and therefore, at best, marginally related to those lastr two electoral wins.
As for the third point as to whether Clinton would run, I don't pretend to know. But that kind of answer is exactly what I was getting at, we should not decide a major Constitutional issue on one political figure. If it is a good rule, then it is a good rule, if not, then it is not. The particulars of the day should not change that.
Finally, as to rigged elections via voting machines. If this is true then we are screwed regardless of what the rules are and it kinda renders the entire question moot.

As to my original point, if we need term limits for President, why not Congress. Virtually every founding father who made his way to Congress after a few terms stepped aside to let other good men serve, just like Washington.

My problem is presidential term limits remind me of salary caps, collusion and amateur drafts in pro sports. The point was, I think, to keep even the minority party in some degree of power thereby giving up the chance at a dynasty in exchange for stability of power within a fixed group. That is my issue with the amendment, even if it is a good rule.

[dancj]

You know, I'd have less problem with this if we had an election system like Parliament, where you can call for a new President at any time during their term (I think that's the way it works, someone British can explain it better).

I'm not aware of use being able to do that. Our system is pretty bad really. We don't get to vote for our Prime Minister. We just vote for our local member of parliament and then the party with the most members of parliament gets to choose the Prime Minister - hence we're dumped with Tony Blair for another (third as it happens) term.

The two term rule seems pretty undemocratic to me (as does the one that insists the president is a born American), but at least if we had it we'd be rid of Blair now - who is pretty unwelcome these days. Thinking about it, the 3rd term was where it all went wrong for Thatcher too so maybe we should have the 2 term rule too.

Dan

[WatsonGlenn]

I do believe he'd take over the leadership role again, given the chance, for the good of the country. You folks need a strong leader, and he seems to be your best at the moment. I wish you had more to chose from, but you don't seem to, which is very strange given the nature of your country (that's meant as a compliment).

Gee, thanks.

[outlander78]

Sorry, I should have taken time to phrase that better.

Many Americans (yes, this is a generalization) strive to get ahead, lead and advance themselves and their causes and companies. Some of them are good at it. So why do you only have Kerry and Bush as choices on ballots?

[WatsonGlenn]

Sorry, I should have taken time to phrase that better.

Many Americans (yes, this is a generalization) strive to get ahead, lead and advance themselves and their causes and companies. Some of them are good at it. So why do you only have Kerry and Bush as choices on ballots?

We have this system called primaries that weeds out sometimes dozens of persons who many think are capable.

That way, unlike in the UK or Isreal, the leader is usually chosen by a majority of the voters.

I like the certainty built into our system more than the coalition building of the UK or Isreal.

Since the US is the oldest major representative government in the world our system speaks for itself.

[Inkthinker]

We have this system called primaries that weeds out sometimes dozens of persons who many think are capable.


Also weeds out anyone who can't afford to spend millions of dollars on campaign advertising, or anyone without the support of major organizations with their own hosts of self-interests unrelated to the public trust.

I always like to hear our President talk about spreading democracy from the US, given that we're not a democracy; we're a representative republic, which is not the same thing, and has a host of problems of it's own (usually related to whether or not representatives actually represent their constituency, or represent a few small but powerful interests capable of placing them in office due to coruption and an encouraged lack of public participation.)

[bartl]

We have this system called primaries that weeds out sometimes dozens of persons who many think are capable.

That way, unlike in the UK or Isreal, the leader is usually chosen by a majority of the voters.
First of all, we have a system called primaries which most voters consider to be a major waste of time, while well organized extremists vote as blocs, guaranteeing the weeding out of the best candidates. Every now and then, the party leaders manage to get a designated candidate, who is therefore immune to paying off the extremists; in 2000, the Republican party actually tried that with George Bush, but when McCain put up an excellent campaign, Bush had to sell out to the extremists in order to get the nomination (on the other side, Senator Bill Bradley put up an excellent fight for the Presidential nomination, and you would be surprised at how many people thought that both Bradley and McCain were superior choices to either Bush OR Gore).

Now, one advantage of the American system is that leaders have the ability to make temporary unpopular decisions, and be judged on how those decisions turn out, rather than the immediate reaction. For example, in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg, faced with major budget shortfalls, made some VERY unpopular decisions; the only which he completely backed off on was a blitz of tickets on previously unenforced laws. However, now that the results are in, he has shown some impressive results, where major budget cuts have resulted in relatively minor service cuts, and now he is very popular, in spite of a fiasco resulting in his failure to get a major sports complex put in Manhattan.

[bartl]

Also weeds out anyone who can't afford to spend millions of dollars on campaign advertising, or anyone without the support of major organizations with their own hosts of self-interests unrelated to the public trust.
Well, lexicographically speaking (and, last I was looking, he was not addressing a conference of political scientists), according to Merriem-Webster:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

American Heritage says:
SYLLABICATION: de·moc·ra·cy
PRONUNCIATION: d-mkr-s
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
ETYMOLOGY: French démocratie, from Late Latin dmocratia, from Greek dmokrati : dmos, people; see d- in Appendix I + -krati, -cracy.

[Samurai]

I'm in favor of keeping the term limit. I'd rather not have Bush or Clinton as President again. I think 8 years is long enough for any 1 person to be President...

[WatsonGlenn]

First of all, we have a system called primaries which most voters consider to be a major waste of time,

I love how you guys speak for "most voters."

In any case the primary system has worked well for near two hundred years. I don't know how many peope think it is a waste of time. I certainly don't. Its main advantege is that it usually makes sure the person elected is elected with a majority.

In no way does it weed out the best candidates. The cream rises to the top and the person that can build coalitions and appeal to as many differant sorts as possible is the guy that wins each primary. We get to see these guys in the fire and we pick the one we are most comfortable with.

The primary winners face off in what should be and usually is a battle of idea and desires. The Democratic party stand for this this and this. The Republicans stand for this this and this. Now make your choice because no matter what anh poll says the winner is in palce for four years.

If one party screws up and pick a bad cadidate then the other party is there to pick up the pieces.

Of course some people are gonna hate anyone that is more succesful then themselves. Democrats count on that in may elections.

[WatsonGlenn]

Also weeds out anyone who can't afford to spend millions of dollars on campaign advertising, or anyone without the support of major organizations with their own hosts of self-interests unrelated to the public trust.

Thats true. Anyone who does not have the gumption or charisma necessary to raise money cannot be President. I think those are skill a president needs to have. I could not do it. Anyone that can't probably shoudl not be president. Remember Ross Perot. He has some good ideas I guess and peopleliked him but when the going got tough he quit right in the middle of the election. The process weeded this nut out. Of course he did enough damage to give the election to Clinton twice. So that is another exmapel of why the 'TWO' party system is better.

[fumetti]

There's both good and bad in this amendment.

The past 5 years have made me a fan of Bill Clinton (whom I never voted for but now wish I had). Oh how I wish he could have run in 2000 and 2004.

We were lucky that FDR was as good of a war president as a domestic reform president. He would very likely have been elected to a 5th term, and might have served for decades more if he'd have lived. As much as I like FDR, that's just a bad idea. If a president's policies and ideas are good for the country, then they will (or should) be carried on by later administrations. We should emphasize a nation of laws, not men.

I suspect the Dems support this bill because they believe they can get Bill Clinton back in office, and follow up his retirement with a long Hillary run. Again, I want Clinton back but I don't support this amendment.

[bartl]

I love how you guys speak for "most voters."

OK. Tell me, what percentage of eligible voters voted in the last presidential primaries? Was it as much as 10%?

[WatsonGlenn]

and might have served for decades more if he'd have lived.


At first I thought you said he might have "lived" for decades more if he had lived.

[WatsonGlenn]

OK. Tell me, what percentage of eligible voters voted in the last presidential primaries? Was it as much as 10%?

If they did not vote then they are not voters.

[fumetti]

Since the US is the oldest major representative government in the world our system speaks for itself.

Sometimes I feel we're stuck in the "beta" version of representative democracy.

It's better than nothing, but not nearly as good as it could be.

[fumetti]

Okay, here's what's BAD about the primary system.

It's a construct of the political parties to keep control of our entire political system by controlling the ballots and minimizing expenses for smear campaigns.

I know plenty of Democracts who might have voted for McCain over Gore. Had the final ballot had every candidates' name (instead of the two left over from the parties' weedout process), America could very well have had McCain as president in 2000. Instead, we had to choose between a spoiled alcoholic idiot and a stuffy windbag dullard.

The parties prefer the primary system because it reduces their own investment in smearing their opponent. After the primaries, the party only need smear one opposing candidate instead of two or five or ten. Before the primaries, the opposing candidates do the smearing for your party. (Look at the Dems in 2004.)

Another problem I have is the state-by-state nature of it all. Presidential elections SHOULD be reconfigured into national elections (America doesn't have a single national election of any kind).

What's worse is the whole patronizing attitude of it all. The parties treat us as if we're too stupid to wade through more than two brands. Coke or Pepsi? Heaven forbid we start asking for Gatorade. They can't control an unlimited number of candidates on the November ballot, and so they make sure any third name is considered a peculiarity.

Y'know, the party system isn't in the constitution. But somehow they've been able to distort our election system so that we have an almost impossible time choosing anything else.

And, of course, the corporate media is entirely complicit in this conspiracy. It's a hellava lot easier to sell papers & ad time when it's A vs. B. Better to sell ads for the Superbowl than the Olympics.

[fumetti]

The "natural born citizen" requirement was necessary early on to prevent the Tories from voting in some British Lord as president, thereby effectively undoing the entire revolution.

[bartl]

If they did not vote then they are not voters.
If you have to do that much word twisting, it might be an idea to just admit that you're wrong.

[bartl]

I know plenty of Democracts who might have voted for McCain over Gore.
I know plenty of Republicans who might have voted for Bradley over Bush, as well.

[WatsonGlenn]

The problem with more than two candidates is that it makes it very possible no one candidate gets a majority. I want the winner to have a majority of the votes whenever possible. The primary system does this.

[WatsonGlenn]

I know plenty of Republicans who might have voted for Bradley over Bush, as well.


If 20 million would have voted for him then he could have won.

You can't blame the Democrats or a Republicans for being organized.

[fumetti]

I can also add that as a registered Independent (the form actually said "non-partisan" but I'm anything BUT non-partisan) that the primaries serve to keep independent thinkers like me out of the selection process until the very end.

So not only am I against the primary system, I'm against the state gov'ts asking voters to register any party affiliation of any kind. It should never be part of the process. This kind of self-branding leads to sheep-like mentalities. (Again, did I say the system is set up to control us and limit our choices...?) Just as some folks wouldn't buy any brand of car but a Chevy, there are voters who have convinced themselves of "brand loyalty" to their chosen party. It's a sickness of the mind, and a self-inflicted assault on their own freedom of mind. We should only ever be registered as "legal to vote" and nothing more.

This is why in 1992 when I left the Republican party that I did not choose a new party. I understood that as long as I branded myself, I was doing the politicians' work for them. And I have been preaching this forever. But the biggest argument against my position (and this doesn't apply to every state) is that it limits your involvement in the primaries.

I should be able to vote in ANY primary race I choose. ALL of them, if I want. If a political party wants to run a primary race in my state, what right do they have to tell me--a citizen of that state--that I cannot cast my vote? It's a primary, a wholly unofficial run-off. (The concept of one man one vote does not apply.) This whole scam is to limit you. You can vote for one, but not the other. So even if your state allows crossover primary voting, I believe they still allow you just one primary to vote in (lemme know if that's wrong). This way, if a bunch of Dems vote in the GOP primary, the GOP can use those inflated numbers to market the party's growth in that state.

If Americans actually want real political freedom, they'd do themselves a favor and abolish the primary system.

If not that, they should at least abolish state involvement in any party's political primaries. Let the parties PAY for it themselves, RUN it themselves, or DISALLOW them from turning eligible voters away for any reason.

[fumetti]

The problem with more than two candidates is that it makes it very possible no one candidate gets a majority. I want the winner to have a majority of the votes whenever possible. The primary system does this.

A true primary system designed towards legitimizing the eventual winner would have a Spring run-off where every name is on the ballot and the top five (six, four, ten, whatever) vote getters would then be put on a Fall ballot. There would be no limits to how many of each party could run. (It would be best if ballots NEVER listed which party the candidate is a member of.)

Keep in mind, our Fall ballots already have more than two candidates to choose from. There's one from each party. And yet we can still get a majority.

Given the trend that the GOP is setting, I no longer feel an absolute majority is good for the country. Clinton and Bush each won with less than a majority and the country didn't fall apart. (The divisiveness came from the extremist political aggression by the GOP where they based a minority victory in 2000 and a 3% win in 2004 as "mandates" whereby they could rule with impunity.) At least Clinton was humble about his 38% or so. We could use more election results like in 1992.

We need to stop treating politics like sports. It's not in our best interest to go declaring "champions." It leads to arrogance and autocracy.

[WatsonGlenn]

You can vote in any primary you want in each election but you can't vote in all of them. That would not be fair. The Democrats and Repubicans are a club. If you're not a member you don't get to vote for their chosen candidate.

I'm not a Rotary memeber so I don't vote for their Grand Poo Baa.

Again, you seem to be complaining because the major parties organized themselves and won't let you play on both teams at the same time.

[WatsonGlenn]

At least Clinton was humble about his 38% or so.




Whaaaatttt?????

[NatGertler]

The Democrats and Repubicans are a club. If you're not a member you don't get to vote for their chosen candidate. If they're exclusionary clubs then why does government pay for their primaries?

Now there are various states that let you vote in any one primary whether you're affiliated with the party or not, and thus back the candidate you support at primary time. However, I do prefer Louisiana's system which basically ignores parties, creating two rounds of voting -- one for every candidate, and then if no one candidate gets a majority, another round between the two top vote getters. For those who want to assure that a majority candidate wins, there's the path. It's not the optimal way of getting a candidate that is actually liked by the largest number of people, but it gets closer to that than other methods.
Again, you seem to be complaining because the major parties organized themselves and won't let you play on both teams at the same time.Yes, that they arrange it as teams, and that they arrange for candidates to be beholden to the team and to serve the interests of the team rather than the interests of the American public is indeed a problem.

[dancj]

The problem with more than two candidates is that it makes it very possible no one candidate gets a majority. I want the winner to have a majority of the votes whenever possible. The primary system does this.

So does the single transferrable vote system

[bartl]

at primary time. However, I do prefer Louisiana's system which basically ignores parties, creating two rounds of voting -- one for every candidate, and then if no one candidate gets a majority, another round between the two top vote getters.
And Louisiana has just about the best government that money can buy (I have friends in New Orleans who are being pushed out by council members who are personally profiting by this, in particular Jackie Clarkson, who also is using the police as her personal hit squad, illegally enforcing laws that the courts have already thrown out).

[outlander78]

And Louisiana has just about the best government that money can buy (I have friends in New Orleans who are being pushed out by council members who are personally profiting by this, in particular Jackie Clarkson, who also is using the police as her personal hit squad, illegally enforcing laws that the courts have already thrown out).

Why isn't more done about this? What happened that broke the system so badly? Apathy?

[bartl]

Why isn't more done about this? What happened that broke the system so badly? Apathy?
Well, seeing that the local ACLU is apparently in on the deal...

[NatGertler]

And Louisiana has just about the best government that money can buyWell, at least they get what they pay for. Around here, the folks who buy the government just get crappy government, without the benefits that it's supposed to entail.

[WatsonGlenn]

If they're exclusionary clubs then why does government pay for their primaries?

Now that is a good question and the answers ars because it works, its more efficient and to keep the process open

Now there are various states that let you vote in any one primary whether you're affiliated with the party or not, and thus back the candidate you support at primary time.

Thats true but you cannot vote in for a Democrat in one primary race and a Republican in the very same primary race. For God's sake pick a side!

[WatsonGlenn]

And Louisiana has just about the best government that money can buy (I have friends in New Orleans who are being pushed out by council members who are personally profiting by this, in particular Jackie Clarkson, who also is using the police as her personal hit squad, illegally enforcing laws that the courts have already thrown out).

I visited NO last summer and read the papers everyday. Their school board is a mess. Its really unbelievable.

[NatGertler]

Now that is a good question and the answers ars because it works,It works at doing what? At keeping the big politics corporations underwritten by the people who do not support them?
its more efficientSo this is the one thing we invoke a communist-like efficiency on? Take from everyone to fund these exclusionary political groups?
and to keep the process openExcept you're against the process being open, so that seems an odd argument.
Thats true but you cannot vote in for a Remocrat in one primary race and a Republican in the very same primary race.If the folks you don't vote for are then excluded from the race, you should be able to.
For God's sake pick a side!Sorry, no. I have far more interest in seeing the best possible candidates brought forth than in finding another division between people. I realize it's to the benefit of these political groups that people align with the group, but I'd far rather see people supporting good candidates then trying to pick a team to root for as if this was some sort of sporting event. And I'd far rather have candidates whose "side" was "the good of the people they serve" rather than whichever political "team" they happen to be on.

[bartl]

Sorry, no. I have far more interest in seeing the best possible candidates brought forth than in finding another division between people. I realize it's to the benefit of these political groups that people align with the group, but I'd far rather see people supporting good candidates then trying to pick a team to root for as if this was some sort of sporting event. And I'd far rather have candidates whose "side" was "the good of the people they serve" rather than whichever political "team" they happen to be on.
In an ideal world, that would work, but in the real world, especially if the candidate for one party is a fait accompli, a person from that party may vote in the other party's primary for the purpose of sabotage; voting for a candidate who is more likely to lose.

[outlander78]

It's interesting how complex "one vote per person" can get. You have problems if you have too few or too many parties, unequal riding sizes, "first past the post" or representation based on the distribution of votes and many other problems. I suspect that being a political scientist must be a fascinating job (if you can get it).

[NatGertler]

In an ideal world, that would work, but in the real world, especially if the candidate for one party is a fait accompli, a person from that party may vote in the other party's primary for the purpose of sabotage; voting for a candidate who is more likely to lose.And that holds true even if the voter must register for the party their unlikely to vote for in order to do so.

(And in an ideal world, we wouldn't have the parties in the first place...)

[WatsonGlenn]

It works at doing what?

It worked at keeping our country rich and strong for over 200 years.

Except you're against the process being open, so that seems an odd argument.

I'm not against the process being open. I think for the most part it is open.

I'd far rather see people supporting good candidates then trying to pick a team

Well then when it comes to a team of determined people verses you alone I don't hold out much hope for you. The two party system works becaue it is stronger than the no party system. What I fear is the multi party system of countries like Italy and Isreal where coalitions of small party extremists can influence policy far beyong their numbers.

Let me bring up the German Wiemar government. Despite the small size of the NAZI party it was able to foil the governemnt and eventaually take power. That could not happen in a two party system.

For the record I am not calling anyone a Nazi.

[NatGertler]

It worked at keeping our country rich and strong for over 200 years.No. The primary system itself as we understand it is a product of the 20th century.
I'm not against the process being open....so long as it's exclusionary? That would seem an odd definition of being "open".
The two party system works becaue it is stronger than the no party system.That doesn't even make sense as a logical construct. It's like saying "the car works because it is stronger than a bicycle", as though its existence is predicated on there being a bicycle.
What I fear is the multi party system of countries like Italy and Isreal where coalitions of small party extremists can influence policy far beyong their numbers.As opposed, say, to the two party system where small groups of extremists within a party can influence policy far beyond their numbers?

[WatsonGlenn]

No. The primary system itself as we understand it is a product of the 20th century.

The two party system is as old as the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The primary system evolved over time but it is certainly older than the 20th century.

...so long as it's exclusionary? That would seem an odd definition of being "open".

Its open in that it is transparent and almost anyone over 18 can pick a side and vote.

That doesn't even make sense as a logical construct. It's like saying "the car works because it is stronger than a bicycle", as though its existence is predicated on there being a bicycle.

I see your point, but my point is we have to have some sort of system and this one works

As opposed, say, to the two party system where small groups of extremists within a party can influence policy far beyond their numbers?

The US has historically pulled to the center. Oranizing into groups makes you stronger. If you want to play lone wolf thats your right but don't complain if others decide to work together.

[NatGertler]

The two party system is as old as the Federalists and the Anti-federalists.But that was not what was being addressed. The government funding of presidential primaries was.
The primary system evolved over time but it is certainly older than the 20th century.As the Wikipedia points out, until the latter half of the 20th century, nominees were indeed chosen by a nominating convention of mostly party leaders. Direct primaries were first introduced at the local and state level as part of the Progressive Era reforms of the early 20th century.

Despite this, direct primaries were not fully used for national candidates until the latter half of the 20th century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primaries)
I see your point, but my point is we have to have some sort of system and this one worksWorks at eliminating good candidates, at passing legislation that is good for the "teams" rather than good for the country....
Oranizing into groups makes you stronger....while weakening what you stand for. If the goal is to be on a winning "team", then that makes sense. If the goal is to have good government, no, it doesn't.
If you want to play lone wolf thats your right but don't complain if others decide to work together.I shouldn't complain about a system that weakens the quality of governments and of candidates, that distorts political stands, that takes my tax money to fund these teams? I shouldn't complain that these teams pass legislation to help prevent them from having competition? Why the heck shouldn't I complain?

[fumetti]

For God's sake pick a side!

Boy, the two-party duopoly on American politics really OWNS you!

You've wholly bought into the Coke/Pepsi approach to politics.

[WatsonGlenn]

[QUOTE=NatGertler]But that was not what was being addressed. The government funding of presidential primaries was.

Thats true but I think the two are linked. You might be right about the primaries. I will have to look into it.

IMO the cost of primaries is not that great and they serve a valuable purpose. Even if we did not have primaries we would still have to have multiple elections to get down to two candidates.

You don't like the government, I get that from the rhetorical questions you keep asking, but my point is the US government has done a pretty damn good job over the last two hundred years and part of that success is due to the two party system which provided stabilty while still allowing for evolution.

[tymac]

I shouldn't complain about a system that weakens the quality of governments and of candidates, that distorts political stands, that takes my tax money to fund these teams? I shouldn't complain that these teams pass legislation to help prevent them from having competition? Why the heck shouldn't I complain?

I agree with Nat. It's unfortunate, the only avenue that we have left is to complain, and hope for change that won't come.

How many people really buy into the full "party platform" way of thinking. Especially considering how many contadictory ideas are mixed into those platforms. I find that although I agree with some portion of each party's ideals, there is not enough there for me to endorse either one. Am I simply out of the political equation?

[fumetti]

You can vote in any primary you want in each election but you can't vote in all of them. That would not be fair.

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to vote in every party primary in my state. Then give me one constitutional reason.


The Democrats and Repubicans are a club. If you're not a member you don't get to vote for their chosen candidate.

I'm not a Rotary memeber so I don't vote for their Grand Poo Baa.

Is your Rotary club run on public tax dollars? Does your local gov't pay for all the costs of selecting Grand Poo Baa's?

These primaries are funded by public tax dollars. Therefore I can place demands upon them. If the GOP and Dems paid for their primaries 100% with their own money, THEN they can pretend they are only "clubs."

Tax dollars pay for the LOCATION, the EQUIPMENT, the PERSONNEL (and TRAINING), the publication and printing of BALLOTS, and all the miscellaneous costs.

The primaries are STATE-run. They are NOT run by the parties.

And let me add, just where do you sign up as a member of a political party? Is it the state or local party headquarters? No. It's your county courthouse. So this is another "club" expense paid for wholly with public tax dollars.

You can never win an argument that I don't have the right to place demands or expectations on things that involves my government and/or tax dollars. The parties not only involve gov't and tax money, they are damn well DEPENDENT on it.


Again, you seem to be complaining because the major parties organized themselves and won't let you play on both teams at the same time.

You are hopelessly lost. You see politics as a necessarily antagonistic process. You like black vs white, us vs them, winners vs losers. You want me FORCED into picking the Patriots or the Eagles, because you can't understand that I'm really a fan of the whole NFL in general.

I guess that kind of holistic thinking is too close to collectivism for right-wing tastes. The world doesn't make sense if you don't keep the masses frothing at the mouth and at each others' throats...

[fumetti]

Let me bring up the German Wiemar government. Despite the small size of the NAZI party it was able to foil the governemnt and eventaually take power. That could not happen in a two party system.

For the record I am not calling anyone a Nazi.

HA!!!!!

It is as I've always said, give a right-winger time and he'll ALWAYS prove himself a HYPOCRITE.

When I used holocaust denial to illustrate an extreme disregard for obvious facts on another thread, you whined and whimpered that (somehow) I called you an anti-semite.

And here you go and do the same damn thing to somebody else.

You don't like it when someone uses a Nazi-related example against YOU, but it's perfectly okay for you to use it against someone else.

[Adam Crocker]

Let me bring up the German Wiemar government. Despite the small size of the NAZI party it was able to foil the governemnt and eventaually take power. That could not happen in a two party system.

Poor logic. You fail to account for the many factors involved that made the Nazi party a desirable ally and the problems that the Weimar Republic unstable in the first place. For one there was the increasing popularity of both the Nazi Party and the Communists in response to the economic crisis Germany faced that was partly percipitated, and seen by many as being solely caused, by the punatative conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Naturally the conservatives in charge of the government gravitated towards the Nazis as they were seen as a bulwark against Communism.

Moreover, there is the fact that the Weimar Republic had been discredited in the eyes of much of the German public by the High Command of the German military, who argued for a surrender realizing that the German military was on the verge of collaspe, but passed on making the surrender to a parliamentary government (and the German Social Democrats took the bait) so they could evade responsibility and discredit the parliamentarians they held in disdain. Also the German public was never told about the actual condition of the Geman army near the end of the war so they wound up believing that the parliamentary government had sold them out when they were on the verge of victory. As a result there was great antipathy towards the idea of a parliamentary democracy among the German public, which the economic crisises of the 1920s and early 1930s only worsened, giving groups like the Nazis sufficient numbers and credibility to influence the political system.

In any case the Republican Party is already being influenced by extremists beyond their numbers with its catering to right-wing religious groups in the south. So it's not as though the two-party system is particularly immune to this. In fact the lack of serious competition to either party seems to allow such groups to get a foothold by appealing to smaller constituencies rather than expand their support base against competing parties.

[dancj]

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to vote in every party primary in my state. Then give me one constitutional reason.

My understanding of Primaries is based purely on what I've read in this thread, but a good reason why you shouldn't be able to vote in the primaries for a partiy you don't want to win would be that you could deliberately vote for the most hopeless candidate in the hopes of ruining their chances of winning the election.

I wouldn't know about the constitution, but if something is wrong then it's wrong regardless of whether it's in the constitution

[WatsonGlenn]

HA!!!!!And here you go and do the same damn thing to somebody else.


Who did I call an anit-semite? Who did I use a Nazi-related example against? I'm really curious as to what you think or if.


I see no justiifcation for your position whatsoever. Sometime I think you guys just look for the silliest reasons to win your pretend Internet points. Its like you don't believe in anything so you just make it up as you go. You can't really even believe what you just said. It just not rational. And of course the glee you enjoy about this nonexestant point represented by your "HA!!!" is just pathetic.

[WatsonGlenn]

Well I was not writing a disertation just making a point about the two party system. You can take it or leave it. But I was not calling anyone a nazi. That was never my intention. (Quick question off topic. Did you get the feeling I was calling anyone a Nazi in that post? Fumetti seemd to.)

The reason the NAZIs were able to gain so much power so quickly is because of the multi party system that existed in the Weimar government. The other parties were forced to work with the Nazis since they could not form a majority without some sort of coalition. I don't know how many parties existed in Germany but there were at least five of six with significant nyumbers in the Bundesraat. With a two party system one side or the other has to be able to form a majority and so in order to win each party pulls to the center.

As you mentioned the Wiemer government had several good years after WWI when Germany was doing relatively well. Its only when the world wide Depression hit and inflation became such a problem in Germany that the old accusations of giving up too soon in WWI resurfaced with such power.

My point is that the growth of extreme ideologies like fascism are hindered by the two party system

In America moderates are able to influence extremeist more than the other way around. That was not true of the Weimar government. Ironically America is more Hegelian than Germany.

[fumetti]

My understanding of Primaries is based purely on what I've read in this thread, but a good reason why you shouldn't be able to vote in the primaries for a partiy you don't want to win would be that you could deliberately vote for the most hopeless candidate in the hopes of ruining their chances of winning the election.

It's not in the state or federal gov't interest to protect an in-party run off election from Trotskyism--not at the expense of my right to offer my voice as to which candidate is best.

Since parties aren't part of the constitution, there's no constitutional basis to deny my participation in any state run election simply because I once told a clerk my party preference. There's no legal basis for this discrimination. I'm paying for it, so I should get to cast a vote.

If the parties want independent control of their primaries, they should run them independently. Once they involve public resources of any kind, then they lose that independence.

[dancj]

It's not in the state or federal gov't interest to protect an in-party run off election from Trotskyism--not at the expense of my right to offer my voice as to which candidate is best.
I'm presuming you can offer your voice for the party that you support?
Since parties aren't part of the constitution, there's no constitutional basis to deny my participation in any state run election simply because I once told a clerk my party preference. There's no legal basis for this discrimination. I'm paying for it, so I should get to cast a vote.
I'm not sure why you feel they should have a constitutional basis to restrict you to one party's primary
If the parties want independent control of their primaries, they should run them independently. Once they involve public resources of any kind, then they lose that independence.
If the parties are running their own primaries that (in theory) opens up the whole thing to rigging, and effectively letting the parties choose their own candidates - which is what we get in Britain. I'd quite happily have gone for an American style system for the last election. We might have managed to get rid of Tony Blair that way.

[WatsonGlenn]

My understanding of Primaries is based purely on what I've read in this thread,


Based on your last post I think you understand the concept of primaries quite well. Why do many Britons not like Blair? Is it just the Iraq thing?

[WatsonGlenn]

We might have managed to get rid of Tony Blair that way.

This is way off topic but I was saw this article and wondered what you though about it. Its about England and France and its short.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18728

[mjm1231]

Since parties aren't part of the constitution, there's no constitutional basis to deny my participation in any state run election simply because I once told a clerk my party preference. Well, you've almost answered your own question there. Each state decides this individually, much the same way that each state decides how to apportion its electors. I think California uses that system for their state elections, not sure if any state uses it for national primaries.

[dancj]

Based on your last post I think you understand the concept of primaries quite well. Why do many Britons not like Blair? Is it just the Iraq thing?

Lying and taking us into a war we didn't want to go into is a big part of it. The university tuition fees are a very sore point with a lot of people too.

A lot of people are disappointed that when we got rid of the tories, we seemed to get another tory party (Tony Blair PM is an anagram of "I'm tory plan B"). There are a lot of Labour MP's who do still have their hearts in the right place, but they'll never have much power as long as Blair is around.

[dancj]

This is way off topic but I was saw this article and wondered what you though about it. Its about England and France and its short.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18728

I don't know enough about the harbouring terrorists thing to comment on it. Some newspapers are going apeshit about that at the moment, but I haven't seen nearly enough of the actual facts to make up my own mind.

I think they were right to let the girl what she wanted to wear to school - but that's largely because I disagree with school uniforms. France was way out of order banning the headscarfs

[bartl]

The major problem with parliamentary systems comes up when there are two parties, each with a near-majority of the vote. This ends up giving an incredibly disproportionate amount of power to relatively minor parties, often issue-oriented.

[WatsonGlenn]

The major problem with parliamentary systems comes up when there are two parties, each with a near-majority of the vote. This ends up giving an incredibly disproportionate amount of power to relatively minor parties, often issue-oriented.


I agree. The American system forces a decision without the waffling that coalition governments often require.

[WatsonGlenn]

France was way out of order banning the headscarfs

I thought so at first too but now I am not so sure.

[fumetti]

If the parties are running their own primaries that (in theory) opens up the whole thing to rigging, and effectively letting the parties choose their own candidates - which is what we get in Britain.

The parties choose their own anyway. There's no obligation by the GOP or Dem conventions to select the highest vote getter of the primaries. (Minority vote-getters have been nominated in the past.)

Any corruption in a wholly party-run primary run off is the concern of the members, not the state unless there's a case for fraud.

[fumetti]

I am 100% in favor of school uniforms. (And I definitely didn't used to feel this way.)

Not because of conformity issues, but because schools need all the help they can get towards focusing kids on their schoolwork.

Clothing has become a distraction. From slutty to political, attire has become too much of a focus for the kids. If we're serious about improving our schools--and throwing all the responsibility on the teachers--then they must be given the power to weed out unnecessary distractions.

[dancj]

The parties choose their own anyway. There's no obligation by the GOP or Dem conventions to select the highest vote getter of the primaries. (Minority vote-getters have been nominated in the past.)

Now I'm confused. What are the Primaries for in this case?

[WatsonGlenn]

Now I'm confused. What are the Primaries for in this case?

Politcal parties are like clubs that organize themselves in such a way as to present the candidates that are most likely to win elections.

Primaries are the way most political parties have chosen to pick their candidates for the real election. Primares do not have the force of law but if they are ignored by the party leaders the party usually suffers.

Its true that a party can pick their candidate in any way they chose but the reality is no party would be taken seriously anymore if they did not provide the opportunity for their rank and file members of that party to chose the party candidate.

If someone wants the opportunity to votes in mulitple primares in the same election they are simply not being fair.

When talking about presidential elections its gets confusing if no cadidate gets a majority of electoral votes. (The Electoral College is a whole nother can of worms) If this happens the selection moves to the House and the majority party would probably pick the candidate from their party.

[bartl]

Now I'm confused. What are the Primaries for in this case?
In the primaries, the delegates are chosen. The delegates may change their vote.

[dancj]

Right - Cheers