Do you think this is how our forefathers intended for the government to work? Is democracy still acting as it was meant to be?
I often think not. And as we get closer to the election, it got me thinking about all the issues there have been in election in the past decade. Then I remember an 'essay' I wrote, voluntarily, just to let off some steam (writing things down can be the best therapy when you're frustrated - try it sometime if you don't already). I wrote this sometime around the turn of the century - I didn't date it so I don't remember exactly when. But I thought I'd share it with you. I know there's flaws in the logic, but then there's flaws in the way politics work this day and age, anyway. Especially with mud slinging that gets worse as you get closer to an election. Well, you can read it for yourself. Remember, this was me venting when I was probably just out of college...
Politics. They've taken on a new form in this day and age. The traditional party lines are no longer as definitive as they once were. You have Republicans crossing over into Democratic beliefs and vice versa, and you have numerous `third parties' trying to make a name for themselves. The traditional `Conservative Republican' and `Liberal Democrat' are phrases for the politics of 50 or more years ago. So does the well known democratic process really still work? Can you really say you support a particular candidate because of their party affiliation? You have more `party supporters' than you do `candidate supporters' going out to vote. If you ask a person on the street if they knew some of the less broadcasted issues, they wouldn't be able to even tell you all of the correct views of candidates on the bigger issues. These are the party supporters who go into the booth and vote straight party line, and that may not even be their beliefs through and through with the blurred lines of today. They don't know the issues, but they go with their registered parties. How often has this placed someone in office that really shouldn't be there, especially at the local government level? Numerous candidates during the most recent local election throwing their name in just so `the people have someone else to vote for' and when you read about their stand on the issues, it's obvious they don't even know what the office entails. But then, anyone who votes straight party wouldn't know this. This is a problem. This is why government has so many problems. Local level have many who aren't even aware of the responsibility of the position they hold and they don't even mesh with all of their own party. But this can be fixed.
It's really a simple logic. Do away with all political parties. And yes, it would still allow the democratic process to work. In fact, it would work better. But by doing away with the political parties, you force every American to look at the issues before going to the polls. There's no pushing just one button to cast your vote. Some out there may already look at all issues, but a majority of people don't. If they did, it's not nearly as likely that they'd have a straight party vote. But you'd then get a candidate in office that the majority truly wants in office, at ALL levels of government. Someone who knows what they're doing and was voted in because of their views on issues, NOT because of their party affiliation. That's quite a concept.
So how would this work? How would we get to the final election if we don't have primaries for the `parties' to pick their one candidate? Again, simple solutions. There would still be primaries. They'd just be a larger ordeal and more important than they are today. Anyone who can fund a campaign can put their name on a ballot. And for higher offices, you'd have to have a petition with X-number of signatures supporting you to go along with that funding. During the primaries, everyone votes for ALL candidates, based on their stand on issues and the political promises they make. The primaries would produce a ranking of candidates, where you'd take the top two candidates for local government, and top three of four at higher levels. These would then be the names placed on the final ballot in November.
Just imagine. You'd have your local city government reflecting the majority of the city's population. At state level, you'd have the majority of the state's population beliefs upheld by the higher offices. And in the state houses and senates, if certain areas are more liberal or conservative than another area across the state, they'd both be represented accordingly. Then of course at the national level, the president would be voted in by the majority of the nation who concur with his beliefs, not his party affiliation. The house and senate would have state representation according the how the population of their state look at the issues. You'd actually have representation of the majority at each respective level. All because you forced people to look at the issues and how each candidate stood on the issues.
Politics would still have their problems. There'd still be `dirty politicians' and as long as human kind has greed, you'll always have some bad apples as such. But you'd no longer have politicians taking sides based solely on political affiliation. Party bashing would be a thing of the past. You'd actually have `individuals' representing you.
No comments:
Post a Comment