Great news: US District Court shoots down West Virginia election-rigging!

[shanek]

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0402/wv_ruling.html

West Virginia Libertarians received an early Christmas present when a federal judge in Clarksburg struck down a confusing state law that made it more difficult to convince voters to sign ballot-access petitions.

On December 23, U.S. District Court Judge Irene Keeley ordered the secretary of state's office to stop enforcing a law that made it illegal for state residents who sign a third-party candidate's petition to vote in the state's next primary election.

As a result, West Virginia residents were reluctant to sign ballot-access petitions for third-party candidates, which created an unfair burden for alternative parties trying to qualify for the state ballot, ruled Keeley.

The law as written is "arguably a legal fiction," she wrote, and creates "irreparable harm" to the First Amendment rights of third-party candidates.

"The irrationality of this law is patent and militates against its necessity," she wrote.

The West Virginia LP had filed a lawsuit against the two laws on August 29. In the lawsuit, they said the laws violate the First and Fourteenth amendments, which protect the rights of free speech and free association.

On December 5, Kerr and would-be LP gubernatorial candidate Simon McClure testified against the primary notification provision in court. They argued that the intent of the law was to make it harder for third-party challengers to qualify for the ballot.

"The whole process of making it difficult is to preserve the near monopoly the two parties have, and to discourage the introduction of new ideas," Kerr told the Associated Press. "[The politicians in power] find it annoying when a non-Republican or non-Democrat is on the ballot."

They lost on another relatively minor issue, but even there significant parts of it—such as the requirement that petitioners get in-person permission from the state to collect signatures—was overturned.

This is just a start. More anti-freedom, anti-democracy election-rigging laws are being challenged all over the country. They will certainly be looking to this one as a precedent.

[WildCat]

I'm still waiting for someone to challenge the 50,000 signatures needed to get someone on the mayoral ballot here in Chicago... If this isn't an insurmountable burden I don't know what is!

[Mike B.]

So when is this Libretarian electoral juggernaut going to sweep the country?;)

[RPG Advocate]

This kind of thing isn't limited to just West Virginia. Ohio's corrupt secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell, is trying to keep Libertarians off the 2004 ballot on a technicality (http://www.lpo.org/). The latest word is that a lawsuit is going to go ahead within the next month.

[Suddenly]

That law has always been sort of a bad joke. I remember talking to someone in Perot's campaign back in '92. I wasn't going to sign the petition until I understood the "can't vote in the primary" thing, and then I signed mainly for protest value. Well, that, and since I was a registered Republican at the time the primary really wasn't any big deal, as there were like 9 of us in my county. I remember that for the '96 primary I had my own booth. The workers mentioned that I was the only Republican in the precinct. I could vote for president and non-partisan stuff, but most offices were vacant.

Give West Virginia a break, we are just getting used to having two parties here and now Shane wants us to have more!

Actually, the WVLP kinda worries me, they worried me back when I was a Libertarian, so I'm not going strictly by policy here. The last I paid them any heed was back in (I think) '00 when one of the state-wide candidates claimed that the LP was "the only real pro-life party in West Virginia." Seemed a bit odd too me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
So when is this Libretarian electoral juggernaut going to sweep the country?;)

We need to get rid of the election-rigging first, which is gonna be difficult especially since the Supreme Court just upheld a lot of it.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Mike B.
So when is this Libretarian electoral juggernaut going to sweep the country?;)

I think Libertarians (and just about every other minority party) are in a catch-22. In order to seriously compete with the Rebublicans and Democrats, they wouldl have to adopt the same tactics that their rivals use: telling a lot of comforting lies and promising some people other peoples money.

Unfortunately, this would make them no different thatn the two parties that already run things. It's a viscious circle and I, for one, have no idea how to break it.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mike B.
So when is this Libretarian electoral juggernaut going to sweep the country?;)

Right after the South rises again.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I think Libertarians (and just about every other minority party) are in a catch-22. In order to seriously compete with the Rebublicans and Democrats, they wouldl have to adopt the same tactics that their rivals use: telling a lot of comforting lies and promising some people other peoples money.

I disagree. One thing that's become very clear is that people are very receptive to the Libertarian message. We just have to get that message out, which is exactly what all of these "reforms" inhibit.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by shanek


I disagree. One thing that's become very clear is that people are very receptive to the Libertarian message. We just have to get that message out, which is exactly what all of these "reforms" inhibit.

Well, I can only say that you have much more faith in people than I do. The Republicans and Democrats do what they do and say what they say because it wins elections.

But, on the other hand, I hope that you are right.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Well, I can only say that you have much more faith in people than I do.

Not faith, just a conclusion based on experience and observation.

The Republicans and Democrats do what they do and say what they say because it wins elections.

AND because they have stacked the deck against those who would challenge them.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by shanek


I disagree. One thing that's become very clear is that people are very receptive to the Libertarian message. We just have to get that message out, which is exactly what all of these "reforms" inhibit.

Honestly, I think a lot of people are sympathetic to the Libertarians. The problem is, the majority of these people vote Republican. No matter how many lies Bush tells, how much money the Republican Congress squanders, how much BS they swallow, they'll continue to vote Republican.

So, for the Libertarians to really succeed, they have to either:

A) Take over the Republican Party or
B) Start convincing people that it's worth their while to vote the way they say they really feel.

Personally, as a Green Party member, I sympathize. We have the same issue with people who continue to vote Democrat no matter how full of ***** they are. (My mother still whines to me about 2000, because I voted for Nader...Not that it matters, I live in GA---Browne had more impact on the election here.)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleon


Honestly, I think a lot of people are sympathetic to the Libertarians.

I think most people don't have a clue about Libertarians or what they stand for.

If you tell them Libertarians are for free speech and less taxes, then sure, they will be sympathetic. But if you tell them they also want to legalize crack cocaine and allow people to carry their guns on airplanes ( ;) ), then they won't get much sympathy.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by shanek


Not faith, just a conclusion based on experience and observation.

My opinion of people is also based on experience and observation. My obseravation and experieince leads me to a different conclusion than you, I guess.

AND because they have stacked the deck against those who would challenge them.

I have no doubt that the "powers-that-be" rig the game in their favor, I would be absolutely shocked if I found out that they didn't. It is yet another thing that makes beating them without adopting their tactics that much more difficult. I'm not saying that it can't be done, I am just saying that I, personally, have no idea how it could be done. Idealism and pragmatism are very hard things to reconcile sometimes.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I think most people don't have a clue about Libertarians or what they stand for.

If you tell them Libertarians are for free speech and less taxes, then sure, they will be sympathetic. But if you tell them they also want to legalize crack cocaine and allow people to carry their guns on airplanes ( ;) ), then they won't get much sympathy.

I agree in a major national campaign the Libretarians would be eaten for lunch.

Can you imagine the negative ads run about them wanting to get rid of government mandated safety caps on medicine bottles or ultimately get rid of medicare and social security as well as the minnimum wage?

Sure they could get a few percentage points, but to the majority of Americans, whether rightly or wrongly, these things are popular.

[Luke T.]

I don't think having more than two major political parties would be a good thing. Think about it. If there were three or four, then after every election you would hear, "Well, THIS president didn't get the MAJORITY vote. He just won more than anyone else. So he doesn't have a mandate." Waah! Waah! Waah! You hear it even now about Bush.

I can't think of any country that has more than two major parties that isn't a political mess. There might be one that isn't, but I don't know.

Getting a bill passed would be a nightmare. More comprising than takes place now would have to occur.

It seems to me that if these minor parties were as popular as they like to believe, they wouldn't be minor parties. To blame the major parties for their problems is to live in denial.

If there was an African-American Party, they would probably get more votes than the Libertarians, but they know they would never win an election and their influence and power is more greatly exercised by working within the existing parties. They accomplish far more that way for the good of all. If they had their own party, America would actually end up more fractious over racial matters.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cleon
So, for the Libertarians to really succeed, they have to either:

A) Take over the Republican Party or
B) Start convincing people that it's worth their while to vote the way they say they really feel.

And we can only do B by making ourselves visible in the media, an avenue that is becoming increasingly closed off to us.

Personally, as a Green Party member, I sympathize. We have the same issue with people who continue to vote Democrat no matter how full of ***** they are. (My mother still whines to me about 2000, because I voted for Nader...Not that it matters, I live in GA---Browne had more impact on the election here.)

You'd really be p!$sed off, then, to learn that the State of North Carolina flat out refused to count the write-in votes for Nader.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I agree in a major national campaign the Libretarians would be eaten for lunch.

Can you imagine the negative ads run about them wanting to get rid of government mandated safety caps on medicine bottles or ultimately get rid of medicare and social security as well as the minnimum wage?

Sure they could get a few percentage points, but to the majority of Americans, whether rightly or wrongly, these things are popular.

Right now, yes, because we're not allowed to tell people that, for example, Medicare costs seniors twice as much out of pocket for medical expenses than they were paying before Medicare began even after adjusting for inflation, or that Galveston County, TX has proved that replacing Social Security with private investments yields over three times the amount of money without even touching the stock market. Once they actually hear this information, and other evidence that these government boondoggles are nothing more than abject failures, then people will start being more skeptical of politicians. That's when we will win.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't think having more than two major political parties would be a good thing. Think about it. If there were three or four, then after every election you would hear, "Well, THIS president didn't get the MAJORITY vote. He just won more than anyone else. So he doesn't have a mandate." Waah! Waah! Waah! You hear it even now about Bush.

We have this kind of thing even with the two party system. The only difference will be the real and true choice that third parties offer.

Besides, there are ways of dealing with the issue, like IRO or Condorcet voting.

Getting a bill passed would be a nightmare.

That might not be a bad thing. There are already thousands of bills being added to legislation every year making government more intrusive into our lives and putting a greater hassle on people and companies to put up with.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't think having more than two major political parties would be a good thing. Think about it. If there were three or four, then after every election you would hear, "Well, THIS president didn't get the MAJORITY vote. He just won more than anyone else. So he doesn't have a mandate." Waah! Waah! Waah! You hear it even now about Bush.

I can't think of any country that has more than two major parties that isn't a political mess. There might be one that isn't, but I don't know.

Getting a bill passed would be a nightmare. More comprising than takes place now would have to occur.

It seems to me that if these minor parties were as popular as they like to believe, they wouldn't be minor parties. To blame the major parties for their problems is to live in denial.

If there was an African-American Party, they would probably get more votes than the Libertarians, but they know they would never win an election and their influence and power is more greatly exercised by working within the existing parties. They accomplish far more that way for the good of all. If they had their own party, America would actually end up more fractious over racial matters.

In a three or more party system, the one that wins is not the most popular but the most different. The candidate that is least like the other two is the one who would not have his votes split. This could often lead to the least popular ideas winning.

An example would be the '92 election. Perot was more of a conservative, he just did not agree with the republican party. He split the conservative vote and gave the election to Clinton.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek

That might not be a bad thing. There are already thousands of bills being added to legislation every year making government more intrusive into our lives and putting a greater hassle on people and companies to put up with.

Even on matters which everyone agrees are necessary, there are compromises. The defense budget, for example. The more parties you have with differeing views, the more compromises that would have to occur. And I doubt even Libertarians would be immune from pork-barrelling.

I think our political process would be slowed down even more. And while we can joke about how that wouldn't be such a bad thing, it really would be a bad thing.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by shanek

You'd really be p!$sed off, then, to learn that the State of North Carolina flat out refused to count the write-in votes for Nader.

That ticks me off for any number of reasons, the main one being that it's undemocratic BS. Write-ins are there to create the illusion that the Democrats and Republicans haven't completely shored up the game for themselves. The least they can do is complete that illusion by counting the damn things.

I'd wager we'd agree quite a bit on the nature of elections in the US.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Luke T.

I think most people don't have a clue about Libertarians or what they stand for.

If you tell them Libertarians are for free speech and less taxes, then sure, they will be sympathetic. But if you tell them they also want to legalize crack cocaine and allow people to carry their guns on airplanes ( ;) ), then they won't get much sympathy.

I was avoiding this subject, because it's really not the point of Shanek's opening thread.

It is harder and harder for the dissenting voice to be heard in American politics, and I think it's fair to say that WV's election laws were vote-rigging for the 2 major parties. This was definitely a victory for freedom of speech.

There are some things I do appreciate about the LP: They're fighting hard to open up the democratic process in the US.

Not that I would ever vote LP (again).

[Zep]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Even on matters which everyone agrees are necessary, there are compromises. The defense budget, for example. The more parties you have with differeing views, the more compromises that would have to occur. And I doubt even Libertarians would be immune from pork-barrelling.

I think our political process would be slowed down even more. And while we can joke about how that wouldn't be such a bad thing, it really would be a bad thing. An obvious corollary to this is that fewer parties would lead to fewer compromises required. The extreme result, of course, is that there would be only one party and so no compromises would be necessary. But then again, I seem to recall that particular experiment died with glasnost...

Anyway, my understanding is that the whole idea of "democracy" is that everyone in a society gets a say in the discussion on issues that affect that society. So discussion and compromise would seem to be part and parcel of that process - not everyone can have their own way with things all the time!

Incidentally, I'm not sure that the concept of "political parties" is even officially codified in US law. That is, that formation of governments rely on the existence of political parties. Instead, I understand it is based on individual representation, and that the "party system" was a later convention based essentially on a form of tribalism amongst the already sitting members. However I am well prepared to stand corrected on that.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Zep

Incidentally, I'm not sure that the concept of "political parties" is even officially codified in US law. That is, that formation of governments rely on the existence of political parties. Instead, I understand it is based on individual representation, and that the "party system" was a later convention based essentially on a form of tribalism amongst the already sitting members. However I am well prepared to stand corrected on that.

They aren't officialy codified in the consittution, anyway, not that I could ever find. Our founding fathers didn't like the idea of political parties and tried to avoid having them. Obviously it didn't work...

[toad]

And this is the point I always come to. Why parties? To be honest, I'm a registered Libertarian and rather glad about it. However, perhaps if we were not voting based on any particular party system but rather issues and beliefs, change would be more possible. As it stands folks will most often vote the “party line” regardless of all else. We’re often led into voting against the other party (whichever one we hate). Seldom will you find someone actually voting for something…anything. If we looked more at issues, candidates, goals we might actually affect a change. So I say why not abolish the parties? (Yes, I live in reality. I know this level of change is nearly impossible, but I’ll ever hope for better in my world.)

...and yes, this is quiite far from the original thread. d'oh.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by shanek


Right now, yes, because we're not allowed to tell people that

What do you mean you are not "allowed"?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Right now, yes, because we're not allowed to tell people that, for example, Medicare costs seniors twice as much out of pocket for medical expenses than they were paying before Medicare began even after adjusting for inflation, or that Galveston County, TX has proved that replacing Social Security with private investments yields over three times the amount of money without even touching the stock market. Once they actually hear this information, and other evidence that these government boondoggles are nothing more than abject failures, then people will start being more skeptical of politicians. That's when we will win.

Another likely result (more likely IMO) should the public come around to your point of view is that one of the established parties will simply co-opt the popular stances and rhetoric of the LP. There isn't intellectual property protection for political ideas.

A reason beyond ballot restrictions and campaign finance laws for the existence of the two party system we have is that it is the natural evolution in a "winner take all" versus a "proportional" system of chosing representitives.

"Descriptive" parties like the LP and Green Party will never rise to the level of the established parties, unless one of the parties collapse. Even then the new party that does the most compromising with the remaining elements of the old party will be the one that rises. The last time that happened was when the Whigs went under in the mid 1800's and got replaced by the Republican Party, largely a modified re-tooling of the Whigs.

The reason for this is that in our system a party that has 15% of the vote is equal to a party that has 0%. Neither gets squat, and regular assured defeat really doesn't attract support. Thus, the more pragmatic supporters of libertarianism/enviromental socialism or whatever "directed" parties wind up in the established parties, which are more flexible and really don't stand for anything universal. They recognize that a voice in a group with a chance of affecting policy is better than a pure voice hopelessly on the outside. Thus support brings more support.

There is the occasional upheaval, be it Teddy Roosevelt with his "Bull Moose" Party or Ross Perot and his 1992 campaign. It never sustains itself. After a one or two elections the steam runs out as any positive popular message gets co-opted by the established parties.

Oddly enough, even though I think the two party system and winner take all elections are the way to go, for reasons that I guess are a whole different topic, in short that it guards against extremeism and encourages compromise, I think it is very important that third parties have reasonable ballot access and are not hampered by unfair campaign financing laws. Why?

Because of the game theory element presented by grass root politics. The thought of the LP pulling 15% away from a Republicain or a Green doing the same for a Dem would force the major parties to make an effort to change policy to avoid losing votes from frustrated voters. The option for a large minority faction to break off and mess up the main party's chances is a valuable weapon that keeps a small majority or plurality from forcing the minority to play their game or vote for the other side. It is the nuclear weapon of intraparty politics.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
They aren't officialy codified in the consittution, anyway, not that I could ever find. Our founding fathers didn't like the idea of political parties and tried to avoid having them. Obviously it didn't work...

It didn't work because people have the right to assemble and form groups, and tend to do so. But that doesn't mean the government should be favoring one or two such groups over the others.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
What do you mean you are not "allowed"?

We are actually prohibited by law, a law which the Supreme Court just upheld, from collecting more than a certain amount of dollars from various donors, funding a political party so that party can use those funds to help its candidates, and we can't advertise ANYTHING within the 60 days before an election.

Of course, the Democrats and Republicans have enough loopholes in the law so that it really won't stop them at all.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
A reason beyond ballot restrictions and campaign finance laws for the existence of the two party system we have is that it is the natural evolution in a "winner take all" versus a "proportional" system of chosing representitives.

I agree with this 100%, and I fully support proportional representation.

[Zep]

Originally posted by shanek

We are actually prohibited by law, a law which the Supreme Court just upheld, from collecting more than a certain amount of dollars from various donors, funding a political party so that party can use those funds to help its candidates, and we can't advertise ANYTHING within the 60 days before an election.

Of course, the Democrats and Republicans have enough loopholes in the law so that it really won't stop them at all. I have only a limited understanding of this, but isn't that why PACs exist - to act as "legal" funnels for ginormous party booster donations, to get around the laws that prevent/limit direct donations to parties?

And didn't Richard Nixon get into some hot water over them? CREEP and so on?

I'd appreciate any explanation...

[Zep]

Originally posted by shanek

I agree with this 100%, and I fully support proportional representation. For those of us who don't know enough about the subject, what exactly is this "winner takes all" situation in the USA, and how and where does it apply in practice?

In what way is proportional representation not involved?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
For those of us who don't know enough about the subject, what exactly is this "winner takes all" situation in the USA, and how and where does it apply in practice?

Let's say your state is alloted 15 electoral votes for President (that's what it is in NC). In 2000, the Presidential vote in NC went as follows:

Bush: 1,631,163
Gore: 1,257,692
Browne: 12,307
Buchanan: 8,874

(Nader wasn't on the ballot in NC, and the state refused to count his write-in votes.)

In the "winner takes all" system we have, since Bush took more votes than any other candidate then ALL of the 15 electoral votes went to Bush.

But in a proportional representation system, the votes would be distributed among the available candidates based on the number of representatives (electors, in this case). So, with 2,910,036 votes for President, that means that, if you divide by 15, that comes to 194,002 votes per elector. That means that Bush would have ended up with 8 electoral votes and Gore would have ended up with 6. Since neither of them got that last electoral vote (even after rounding), then the particular system would have said what should happen to that vote. In some systems, it goes to the biggest vote winner, so Bush would have had 9 votes instead of 8. In others, the remaining vote goes to the biggest vote winner of the remaining candidates who did not have enough votes to gain one. In that case, Browne would have come away with 1 electoral vote.

Make sense?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Zep
For those of us who don't know enough about the subject, what exactly is this "winner takes all" situation in the USA, and how and where does it apply in practice?

In what way is proportional representation not involved?

There is what shanek said, but I was referring more towards the legislature. Each seat in our Congress must be won in a seperate election. Thus, if you have a plurality in a particular district, you get that seat. In a form of proportional representation like a list system the seats are divided up as per the percentage of votes won by each party. There, a party with 5% of the vote nationally gets 5% of the seats, where under our system unless they win a plurality in a particular district they would get squat.

Here's a link to a pro-proportional representation outfit that explains some of the above:

http://www.fairvote.org/pr/

[Zep]

Originally posted by shanek
Let's say your state is alloted 15 electoral votes for President (that's what it is in NC). In 2000, the Presidential vote in NC went as follows:

Bush: 1,631,163
Gore: 1,257,692
Browne: 12,307
Buchanan: 8,874

(Nader wasn't on the ballot in NC, and the state refused to count his write-in votes.)

In the "winner takes all" system we have, since Bush took more votes than any other candidate then ALL of the 15 electoral votes went to Bush.

But in a proportional representation system, the votes would be distributed among the available candidates based on the number of representatives (electors, in this case). So, with 2,910,036 votes for President, that means that, if you divide by 15, that comes to 194,002 votes per elector. That means that Bush would have ended up with 8 electoral votes and Gore would have ended up with 6. Since neither of them got that last electoral vote (even after rounding), then the particular system would have said what should happen to that vote. In some systems, it goes to the biggest vote winner, so Bush would have had 9 votes instead of 8. In others, the remaining vote goes to the biggest vote winner of the remaining candidates who did not have enough votes to gain one. In that case, Browne would have come away with 1 electoral vote.

Make sense? Indeed it does. Thanks to yourself and Suddenly! We have no direct equivalent to a US presidential election for comparison.

What is the counting method used for each Congressional seat? First-past-the-post? Preferential? Your views on same?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Zep
Indeed it does. Thanks to yourself and Suddenly! We have no direct equivalent to a US presidential election for comparison.

What is the counting method used for each Congressional seat? First-past-the-post? Preferential? Your views on same?

The counting method is vote for one person and most votes wins, even if the highest total is a plurality and not a majority. If there are 549 candidates someone can win with .2%

Some states have a run-off provision where in multi-way races if nobody gets a majority there is a sort of "playoff" where the ballot is restricted to the top two candidates in the original election, more or less assuring a majority.

However, not all states have this, and I don't think it applies to elections for federal office, such as Congress. I think it only applies to state office.

I like the "run-off" idea as a sort of safety valve against extremists who get lucky and get a plurality in a multi-way race.

[Tmy]

Why are primaries sponcered by tax dollars? Why should my tax dollars go to a process that is designed as a way for 2 political parties to consolidate their power into one individual.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why are primaries sponcered by tax dollars? Why should my tax dollars go to a process that is designed as a way for 2 political parties to consolidate their power into one individual.

Good question. The IDEA is that the filing fees paid by the candidates are what pays for the primary elections. Of course, if you believe that's how it actually works then let's get together because I've got this great land deal for you to get in on...

I say, let the parties nominate in convention. They bear the expense of holding the convention and nominating their candidates and then submit the candidate list to the Board of Elections, no filing fees required. Independent candidates, having no primary, should not have to pay filing fees, either.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by specious_reasons



It is harder and harder for the dissenting voice to be heard in American politics, and I think it's fair to say that WV's election laws were vote-rigging for the 2 major parties. This was definitely a victory for freedom of speech.



Actually, I typically vote third party whenever possible for this very reason. I think it is important to keep more options available.

If there is a LP candidate, I vote for them. Or if there is an independent, I will vote for them.

Only when I don't have a third option do I vote for one of the two major parties.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Zep
An obvious corollary to this is that fewer parties would lead to fewer compromises required. The extreme result, of course, is that there would be only one party and so no compromises would be necessary. But then again, I seem to recall that particular experiment died with glasnost...

And that is why we have the concept of a "happy medium." One major party is not enough, three is too many.

Incidentally, I'm not sure that the concept of "political parties" is even officially codified in US law. That is, that formation of governments rely on the existence of political parties. Instead, I understand it is based on individual representation, and that the "party system" was a later convention based essentially on a form of tribalism amongst the already sitting members. However I am well prepared to stand corrected on that.

The party system started at the very beginning. You had the Federalists who wanted the Constitution ratified and made the law of the land. Those who were opposed were labelled Anti-Federalists. Some Anti-Federalists resented this label as they weren't all opposed to the Constitution. They just wanted some changes made before ratification. They were lumped in with Anti-Federalists who wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation which preceded the Constitution, and which the framers of the Constitution were supposed to modify, not create a whole new form of government.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Zep
I have only a limited understanding of this, but isn't that why PACs exist - to act as "legal" funnels for ginormous party booster donations, to get around the laws that prevent/limit direct donations to parties?

And didn't Richard Nixon get into some hot water over them? CREEP and so on?

I'd appreciate any explanation...

In 1975, campaign finance laws were passed. To get around these new laws, PACs sprang up. And because of PACs, a new campaing finance law has been passed (2002). And people will find ways around it, too.

It is possible the motivation for the 1975 campaign finance laws were inspired by CREEP. There was a lot of loose, untraceable cash used in the 1972 election, and some of it was used to finance shady operations, and this came up during Watergate afterwards. The campaing finance laws are intended to trace every dollar and where it comes from, and how much can be contributed by an individual. Some of the money used by CREEP to commit their trespasses originated from, or where channeled through, single individuals in large amounts.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And that is why we have the concept of a "happy medium." One major party is not enough, three is too many.

Well, I'm glad that you agree with those who have made the decision for the rest of us... :rolleyes: