Thanks Kristofer for you thoughtful comments. > Parties may still exist as "groups of common interest"
The first amendment states that they are allow to exist but they are also "allowed to PROMOTE their common interest." Allowing them to exist is not enough. They must (under the first amendment) be allowed to promote their common interest. Want does "promote" mean? In this context it means, at least, to speaking to the public about their "common interest". Let us say the Democratic Party has "universal health care" as one of their argued on common interest (platform). They should be allowed to promote that common interest. I also believe that "promote" means (under the first amendment) that they are allowed to provide support to their selected candidate. > but the parties can't use the power that accompanies centralization to stack the cards > against independents. I also think independents are at a major disadvantages. Why? Because independents are not an interest group. People have the right to join or not join an interest group. Independents are not a "group or organization" and they also do not have a "common interest". Also there is no group to "promote" a nonexistent common interest. Independents are, thus, not protected under the freedom to associate clause. They still are protected under the freedom of speech clause. There are three away to fix this major disadvantage of independents. 1) Change the Constitution and take away in individual's right to organize (or join) an interest group. 2) Ignore the constitution and take an organization's right to "promote" their common interest. 3) Find a way to allow an independent to have a chance to compete equally with a organized group. I believe the best approach is not to tear down organized groups (violating the constitution) but to build up independents. Independents do not compete in the primaries. Look at all of the media coverage the major parties candidates got in their primaries. By the time you get to the general election an independent (if any decided to run) would have had zero coverage. There may be a way to have independents competing in some sort of primary. This would provide more support and coverage in their election possibility. I would like to hear other options that would increase the chances of independent without violating an individual's rights under the first amendment. >To use an analogy, one wouldn't outlaw party >duopolies when introducing proportional representation; instead, the >variety that PR enables lets smaller parties survive so that the duopoly >is broken as a matter of course. I think, in general, proportional representation would not violate the freedom of association clause. I would clearly depend on the rules set up under PR (like selection rights and promotional rights). Another problem is that independents are not included in a party type PR. I should point out that single seat elections are (in my opinion) PR. Each neighborhood is represented "proportionally". There are a lot of way to have PR other than parties (males/female, blacks/white/other, neighborhoods). I have less of a concern about a two party system than most. The National Rifle Association (NFA) could start a party, the Right to Life organization could form a party. There is currently the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Workers Party. All of these are "Single Issue" interest groups. You could name 1000 different special interest groups that believe they should be proportionally represented. The problem is overlap. If a voter votes for the NRA Party, they are then voting against the Right to Life Party. Which one do you want to "represent you". One way you can get representation in both is to vote for the Republican Party. The Democratic and Republican Parties are not "single issue" interest groups (parties). I like PR in general, but have a lot of concerns about what it means to have things "Proportional". >The problem with trying to gain knowledge from the statements of >interest groups is similar to that of trying to judge the best product >based only on advertisements: there is a conflict of interest. I really disagree with you here. Yes, each interest group will support the interest of their members. But, to said that information you receive from the Nurse's Association is worth no more than a 60 second ad is insulting. I'm sure there could be legislative opportunities that could help nurses provide better care to their patients'. Even individuals without any health insurance and do not have the ability to pay for their health care you could say have a "conflict of interest". It is best to lesson to a entities before deciding on a course of action. >insurance companies may know more about healthcare than do lawyers, but >the insurance companies would also say that publicly-funded healthcare >is a very bad idea, irrespective of whether that's actually the case. If a congressperson knows that "publicly-funded healthcare" is the only option and they know the best way of providing it, then they don't need to talk to anyone. My experience, in dealing with legislative bodies is that each one have their own agenda and tend not to lesson other alternatives. Could there not be laws analogous to "truth in advertising", for political campaigning? Any argument against restrictions in the latter could also be turned around to be used as an argument against the former, unless one uses an argument of the type that one may accept some inefficiency in the economic realm (due to restrictions on advertising), but that elections are too important and therefore the speech must be unregulated (with the implicit assumption that regulation brings inefficiency). I have no problem of the current administration regulating "truth in advertising". Commercial advertizing (products) tends to be nonpolitical and any administration could do the job effectively. But do you want the Bush administration deciding the truthfulness of Obama's campaign speeches? Another option is to have the courts deciding "what is true". The problem is the election would be over before the court could pass judgment. Also I would not want the (conservative) U.S. Supreme Count deciding the truthfulness of Obama's campaign speeches. Congress did pass a law (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) which did limit some kinds of "political speech". In June 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court did gut some of the teeth of the 2002 act (see Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc). Currently the media has played a part in the truthfulness of political speech. The TV station allows untruthful ads to be put on the air but in the news points out that the ad is not true. The same happens with newspapers. Both say that the ads are free speech and it is not there job to sensor. But they feel they have a public responsibility to find out the true of an ads and inform the public. >I agree that the influence of money is detrimental. More generally, the >problem is that it's possible to influence people by using certain types >of power (such as money, but also by owning media, etc); and that those >who have this power can make deals with politicians, where the >politicians then repay them greatly once in office. Both the "seller" >(whoever has power) and the "buyer" (the politician) gain - at the >expense of the people. You seem to agree with me that "Money buys votes". Most government official who take "bribes" go to jail. I guess taking "bribes" is ok if you are a congressperson. Don Hoffard ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
