You can't kill something that was already dead. the so called bi-particain is a figment of one's imagination. The majority has always rejected proposed amandment by the minority. the very fact that only a simpleone vote majority in committee or on the floor in almost all legislation shows this to be true. The majority holds the one vote and rarely needs a minority vote.
What the call biparticianship is merely allowing the other side their say and then imposing the majority rule.
How on earth could anyone expect anything less? We're talking about politicians who attach each other and their families in the most vicious way during campaigns. Do we expect that is all forgotten when the election is over?
SPONSORED BY:
- 1
- 2
Poof Goes the Purple Dream
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
SPONSORED BY
And a big part of the answer is structural. The underlying explanation for the failure of bipartisanship is our flawed primary system. It sounds strange, but few Republicans fear being beaten by a Democrat; they come mostly from deeply red areas and have high odds of surviving a general election. The real fear is an upset in a Republican primary, as conservative Utah Rep. Chris Cannon suffered last year when he ventured too close to the center on immigration.
SUBSCRIBE
The American primary system, now about 100 years old, is disturbingly antidemocratic. It disenfranchises independents, who make up about a third of the electorate and aren't allowed to vote in most party primaries. It pushes candidates in both parties to the extremes, which polarizes the debate in ways that don't reflect the centrist views of the vast majority of Americans. And it allows a tiny handful of activist voters to determine who runs the country.
How tiny? In 35 states, the presidential primaries are now held on an earlier date than those for governor, House, Senate and legislative seats. This greatly depresses turnout in the state and local races. Even in the civic-minded states of Iowa and New Hampshire, nonpresidential primary turnout was about 9 percent of registered voters (OK, they were burned out from their intense presidential contests). In Connecticut, it was 14 percent. South Carolina got up to 17 percent and California, 28 percent. That's pathetic. And if you consider eligible voters, the numbers shrink further. All told, only about a seventh of adult citizens vote in nonpresidential primaries, which means that our representative democracy is not, well, representative.
Merely allowing independents to vote in party primaries hasn't done much to address the problem. The best remedy is a truly open primary, where the top two vote getters square off in the general election, even if they are both from the same party. This sounds radical, but it is no more so than other expansions of democracy like the direct election of U.S. senators (until the early 20th century, they were mostly chosen by state legislatures), women's suffrage and lowering the voting age.
Not surprisingly, interest groups and party regulars tend to hate the idea. Oregon voters rejected a ballot initiative for an open primary last fall after swallowing distortions peddled by the teachers' union. But California will vote on an open primary ballot initiative in 2010 and Schwarzenegger, weary of local partisanship, says it's "the next thing" and will enthusiastically back it. Most other big ideas (e.g., the green thing) start in California, and this one might spread quickly, too.
Obama won the White House because of a talent for strategic political thinking. As he looks to victories beyond the stimulus package, he needs to attract mini-Baracks to Washington—fresh, temperate voices in both parties. It's a long-term project, but he could start by offering a new birth of freedom for independent voters and political aspirants trying to move the country out of the valley of the wing nuts.
© 2009
- 1
- 2
Discuss