Cooperative Government

[TheMastersSon]

Instead of a perpetually and intentionally gridlocked two-party political cartel, I've always wondered if this intentional pointlessness was necessary. I mean the Brits never evolved beyond it, even in their however-many-hundreds of years, and our country certainly hasn't in 240 years. But for the last half century I've wondered what America would think of a cooperative government, where congressional representation, committee staffing and chairs etc are determined according to party registration and nothing else, and it is assumed all members work together and not against one another. Thus at least theoretically nobody should be completely shut out or disenfranchised in legislation negotiations. Our current system pretty much guarantees that roughly half of our country is utterly disenfranchised at any given time and on any given issue.

 

It would shift the focus of special interests, PACs etc from elections and politicians to lobbying the current electorate for party registrations. Our House in its current state consists of 435 people who are perpetually running for re-election. Their re-election campaigns begin the day they take their offices and they never stop running for office at any time.

Edited May 22, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[AJStoner]

*Unelected officials, picked by party bosses.
*No one would ever hold office that didn't support every last decision of an invisible, behind the scenes party dictatorship.
*Representatives, if we can even call them that, would have zero accountability for any policies enacted. Indeed, they wouldn't need to take a stance on anything ever.
*It would be completely impossible to determine where any money came from or what it was allocated for within the party structure.
*Completely eliminates the possibility of anyone not belonging to one of the two major parties from ever holding office.
*If it was strictly a matter of total representation by party then stratification by party affiliation would skyrocket.
*There would be no cooperation between parties on any level as you would have created an all or nothing, winner take all scenario.
*People living in regions where their party was the minority would be forced into a mass exodus and states become entrenched echo chambers utterly hostile to one another.
*States controlled by the national minority party would be horribly abused by the majority party which would lead, inevitably, to civil war.

[JimboUK]

People with widely differing views are never going to work together to achieve the same goals, assuming they will isn't going to make it happen. Also the parties are part of the problem, they accept money in exchange for favours just like the politicians so making them all powerful isn't going to make special interests go away. Does the US have a register of members interests? if not then it should, interests have to be declared and members cannot involve themselves with anything that may conflict with those registered interests.

[DrakeTheDragon]

I, too, was a long time hoping for some more cooperation, "working together" inside our government (in Germany). But it seems the whole Coalition vs. Opposition concept has been driven to the totally absurd.

 

Of course the initial idea was for every plan brought forth by one side/interest group for there to always be another side evaluating it with different wants/needs in mind and being able to object. No law/decision should be made without there being an agreement/majority vote. The idea itself is sound.

But what they by now made out of it is... only absurd anymore, like I said. It's no longer evaluation before objection, but objection has become the main function of the opposition parties. Proposals are no longer objected, because they're against your interests/needs or your voters won't stand behind them... No! They are solely objected to, because it was the other side who brought them forth!

 

Did you know, whenever a coalition implemented a long-time plan which initially had a huge cost, but only a few years after their election period would pay out hundred-fold, is "every single time" immediately shot down by the next elected government shortly "before" it starts paying back but "after" it cost an insane amount, "only because it was the other side's idea" in a ludicrous/insane attempt to ridicule and/or blame them?

 

Yeah, no, I'm not stupid, you know. I blame the ones shooting it down for the damages caused, not the ones starting it and not having had any chance to see the vastly beneficial results come in, because their election period was over and the previous opposition shot it down for no sane reason.

 

It's not the idea behind government for 2 sides to battle each other to the death, no matter the casualties to the country they're meant to rule. Each side has to evaluate the validity of previous projects first, not just say "It's the enemy's idea, shoot it down before it prospers!". Sadly, this concept seems to have gone lost on most governmental parties these days.

[TheMastersSon]

There would be no cooperation between parties on any level as you would have created an all or nothing, winner take all scenario.

 

You say that as if our current system is something other than winner take all.

[TheMastersSon]

Did you know, whenever a coalition implemented a long-time plan which initially had a huge cost, but only a few years after their election period would pay out hundred-fold, is "every single time" immediately shot down by the next elected government shortly "before" it starts paying back but "after" it cost an insane amount, "only because it was the other side's idea" in a ludicrous/insane attempt to ridicule and/or blame them?

It's one of a long list of reasons why the PRC will wind up owning and running the entire world, given the status quo. They can accomplish long-term projects and goals without interference from regular staffing changes and resulting budget changes. Two years from now they begin lunar mining of Helium-3 for their fusion power reactors, while our federal government opens our coasts and national parks to oil drilling and fracking. Trump unsuccessfully begs them to buy $200B of handpicked U.S. goods and services while they surpass the U.S. in GDP. It really is a new world order thanks to Nixon and Kissinger. It has been since 1970.

Edited May 22, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[TheMastersSon]

People with widely differing views are never going to work together to achieve the same goals, assuming they will isn't going to make it happen. Also the parties are part of the problem, they accept money in exchange for favours just like the politicians so making them all powerful isn't going to make special interests go away. Does the US have a register of members interests? if not then it should, interests have to be declared and members cannot involve themselves with anything that may conflict with those registered interests.

That first point is probably true imo. But I think the proposed system would at least shift the focus of animosity, and resulting gridlock etc away from individual and even groups of politicians, since their presence and/or majority control would be determined directly by popular will instead of 535 individual election/re-election campaigns, at this point utterly corrupted by special interests, multinationals and PACs. There is absolutely no justification for the Republican Party (especially in its corrupted state) to hold a majority of our House (and pursestrings) when Democratic voter registrations outnumber Republican by millions. The minority has become a dictator to the majority, it's true from our internet and trade to abortion rights for women. And to hell with popular will. I'll spare the repetitive references to Nazi Germany other than this one. :) The problem is particularly awkward in our country because the entire structure of our government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And yet the majority of Americans now stand ignored by and disenfranchised from our own paid federal government, almost regardless of issue. Edited May 23, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[Harbringe]

The first past the post system is along the lines of the legal system in its adversarial tenets. The idea being everyone has ideas but some are good , some are bad , which is it. The good thing is its easier to get rid of the bums that govern (throw em out of office) the bad thing is its easier for the 2 parties to make deals behind closed doors. The last part was not part of the original design and usually happens behind closed door committees. Another aspect is that its the media who is supposed to be the watch dogs of it all , but these days many in media are just in bed with the political system.

 

And Masterson I have to say this , for someone who laments the economic situation with PRC , your idea of allowing the electoral situation in the US to be determined by party registration is exactly what they have in China. Party bosses would be able to determine everything and there would be no checks and balances. Really bad idea.

[TheMastersSon]

The first past the post system is along the lines of the legal system in its adversarial tenets. The idea being everyone has ideas but some are good , some are bad , which is it. The good thing is its easier to get rid of the bums that govern (throw em out of office) the bad thing is its easier for the 2 parties to make deals behind closed doors. The last part was not part of the original design and usually happens behind closed door committees. Another aspect is that its the media who is supposed to be the watch dogs of it all , but these days many in media are just in bed with the political system.

 

And Masterson I have to say this , for someone who laments the economic situation with PRC , your idea of allowing the electoral situation in the US to be determined by party registration is exactly what they have in China. Party bosses would be able to determine everything and there would be no checks and balances. Really bad idea.

It wouldn't and couldn't be exactly like China's electoral system. They don't even have elections or recognition of any other individual civil or human rights, one "party" owns and controls everything.

 

Your first point is entirely correct and I can even tell you exactly when it happened.