Madison describes one of the benefits of a larger union of states to be that it becomes harder for a majority party to exist. His idea is that the more people a republic needs to encompass, the more diverse those people will be. So it would be harder to unite a significant faction under a common party. Did Madison not have a Grover Norquist equivalent in his time that could figure out a small quantity of exclusive hot button issues (God, Guns, + Gays) that would unite a significant portion of the country?
I'm heartened however to read that the founding fathers looked at the tyranny of the majority as the main evil of democratic institutions. They were hoping that the republic they set up would obviate this type of action. The followup questions and answers missing from the Federalist X include: were the founders wrong about the ability for a majority party to exist in a large republic or is our current state of affairs being governed from just one extreme untenable? If it's possible to govern our republic from a non-centrist position, what can we do about it?
I went to a 3rd party meetup (non-Republican and non-Democratic) the other day, and to me it was obvious how useless our 3rd parties are in the US today. I could see a path for a 3rd party to grow from a local, grass-roots level, but these 3rd parties lack the leadership to make that happen. The activist want the big splash of large national campaigns which are unrealistic for a 3rd party to ever succeed at. So I don't see the majority party symptom to be cured by a 3rd, balancing political party anytime soon. Are there any other solutions out there?
1 comment:
Given ballot access laws it's all but impossible for a third party to get into the vote. The Libertarian party, one of the best run and best funded 3rd party groups (and yes, that is a very relative statement) constantly struggles just to get their presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.
The real question though is money. It would appear that money is a major factor in victory. If you don't have the big cash the press writes you off so you don't get any press. And without cash you can't go around the press to the voters by buying media time. This shouldn't matter, in theory voters should be happy to go to websites or send requests for material to the candidates. Rarely has there been a better time to be a candidate than now. In theory. But in practice cash is a major factor in victory so a third party without a huge sugar daddy (remember Ross Perot?) can forget it.
As for extreme candidates winning, what the hell would you call George Bush other than an extreme candidate? But thanks to gerrymandering parties have locks on districts so they don't need to run a competitive vote. They know they will win. This means the 'real' election is the primary when the 'winning' party decides on which candidate it will run. This drives candidates to be more extreme since typically only the die hards vote in the primary. The end result is a lot more lunatic elected representatives.
Post a Comment