Reflecting

[chickenfeet]

I've held off commenting on the elections in the US because I have really mixed feelings about what happened. On the one hand I'm relieved that there is some prospect of a brake being put on the viler projects of the Kleptocracy, on the other I have little faith in a party that is really not so different from the Kleptos on the big issues and is even falling over itself to readmit a traitor like Lieberman.

The problem is that from where I stand democracy in the English speaking world is fairly badly broken and in the US it's really screwed up. (Which is not to say that it isn't the least bad of the available options).

The basic problem is that the system we've inherited was designed to decide which faction of the 18th century ruling elite would hold power while trying to stop them doing much more with that power than get their snouts in the trough. In the US that has changed remarkably little. Henry Dundas would have felt quite at home in contemporary Washington. Over the years the elites have been remarkably adept at keeping the system essentially intact in the face of Universal Suffrage, rise of the Mass Media etc.

A modern democracy would have, as a minimum:

• Districts delineated by, and elections supervised by, a non-partisan electoral oversight body
  
• A real party system with things like party policies and discipline over candidates/representatives
  
• Some real control over campaign finance
  
• Proportional representation of some kind
  
• A non-partisan process for appointing judges
  

None of these things are going to happen in the foreseeable future, not least because the average American today displays the same complacency over his/her constitution that Brits did 150 years ago. So we are stuck with one loose band of corrupt millionaires alternating with another one. It's hard to get really enthusiastic about which one is at the trough.

Comments

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

Say more about the 'real party system' please?

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Say more about the 'real party system' please?

A 'real party' is a collective endeavour for a common purpose. It has an existence independent of its elected representatives. I would say it has the following characteristics:

• It's a corporate body. It has aims and a constitution. Individuals who accept its principles can choose to become members.
  
  
• 'Sovereignty' lies with the members. Ultimately they determine the nature and modus operandi of the party.
  
  
• The party has policies determined according to the party's rules and practices which are, at least to some extent, binding on the party's candidates and elected representatives.
  
  
• Candidates for office running in the name of the party are chosen by the party, financed by the party and run on the party platform.
  
  
• Within any given elected body, the party exerts some sort of discipline over its members.

Contrast this with the US.

• Candidates for faction x are typically chosen locally in primaries where essentially anyone can vote. Effectively, any interested party can buy the local 'brand franchise' for a particular district or office. Any connection between the national policy platform and the candidate is coincidence.
  
  
• Candidates are responsible for their own campaign finance.
  
  
• Candidates run on whatever platform they like.
  
  
• Elected representatives function essentially as independents within the legislature.

When there are two psychologically entrenched, but essentially meaningless 'brands' any kind of alternative politics becomes virtually impossible.

[a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com]

I think much could be done to fix the US system by simply (hah!) making lobbyists and all their works illegal, and requiring that any bill to go through congress have only one purpose, with any subsidiary issues having to connect directly to that main purpose.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

It would help for sure. I think gerrymandering and the ridiculous incumbent return rates it produces is also quite important.