Non-partisan elections - an idea worth considering
From a contributor at The Hill
A better way to elect public servants
This year especially, most people seem to recognize that something is seriously wrong with our system for electing public officials. Perhaps it is caused by all the money being poured into politics from special interest groups. Or perhaps it is simply partisanship gone wild. No matter the cause, the political system seems broken nationally, and in my state. However, recently I learned there is a good alternative for both my state, and the nation. Non-partisan elections could change the way politics works by increasing voter interest and participation with the promise of more moderate elected officials.
The country is frustrated and angry with the dysfunctional state of politics. Our presidential choices, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, are two very unpopular people. Our Congress is held in extremely low regard and is best known for partisan gridlock. Nearly half the country has fled both parties and become independent.
It's a short piece - worth the read. This is a new attempt in South Dakota, and one apparently already in effect in Nebraska. Seems to me California has some elements of this with their new voting system.
Nonpartisan elections allow voters to elect public servants, not party servants. They permit candidates and public officials to be more independent, to vote their conscience and to not be obligated to follow the party line. Based on the experiences of our neighbor, Nebraska, this system improves the quality of candidates in the general election. It also tends to take the ‘hyper’ out of partisanship; the more moderate of the two in the general election often has an advantage.
It's a short read and worth it.
Comments
without a federal amendment, there's no way to
completely eliminate "partisan" elections, because there is no way -- and probably should not be a way -- to prevent a group of similarly-minded people from getting together and voting to select from amongst themselves a slate of candidates to "support" across several offices.
what you can do is eliminate all state support for the partisan system:
A. you get rid of any/all state support for the primaries, including, incidentally, ballot-counting.
B. you get rid of any/all laws specifically regulating the internal processes of the parties (which then become ordinary not-for-profit associations, subject only to whatever laws govern such).
C. MOST importantly, you get rid of anything on the ballot that identifies a candidate with a party. (and therefore, of course, any laws that award ballot placement based on partisan affiliation.)
the down side of such action is that given the dominance of the two already-existing super-parties, you would be handing to the party elites even more control over the selection of their nominees than they already enjoy. our "modern" system of primaries was legislated in the aftermath of 1968 precisely to open up the process -- and i would argue that it's been somewhat effective in that objective, at least at the presidential level, right up until this campaign. the most astonishing aspect of the support given to HRC's candidacy by the "Kossian" sort of democrat is that their argument from day one was that no candidate could possible compete with HRC for the nomination, because she had sewn up the money and the superdelegates before the primaries even began. the obvious implication -- that primary voters have no practical function if the party elite are unanimous -- doesn't seem to have disturbed them in the least.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I agree with you, Untimely
I'll go out on a limb. I believe there should be political parties, I do not believe in party loyalty. I have, until this year due to the Sanders situation, been a registered as an independent, which I will return to after the election. I think political parties are part and parcel of the 'right to peaceably assemble' clause. I believe them necessary to construct platforms with which to appeal to public.
As we have learned, transparency is paramount. No more behind the scenes tipping of the scales. May the best candidate truly win. Super delegates must eliminated to become nothing more than a chapter in history. Howard Dean, et al, can go an practice relations of the bestial nature for all I care about their opinions. People do not need politicians voting for them, which invariably results in the politicians voting for their best interests. Caucus states need to transition to open primaries and closed primary states need to become open primary states; voting in a primary indicates a commitment on the part of the voter. Thorough, somehow independent election oversite must be implemented. (Not the intelligence forsaken DHS who can barely manage airport security) Voting machines need to be made fool proof and hack proof. The FEC needs to be given some teeth and claws and the DOJ needs to aggressively investigate and prosecute corrupt election officials.
It is a matter of political will and perseverance.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
non-partisan like our judges????
Label them, don't label them. It is all about corruption and no cops to police them because the cops are too busy shooting and arresting us. I think it is beyond repair.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon