Is Bipartisanship Not all it is cracked up to be?

[Big Don]

I was inspired in part by this thread about the NCLB act which flew through Congress with wide bipartisan support. Like NCLB, the Patriot Act also had HUGE bipartisan support. So, all these calls for bipartisanship, are they just asking for trouble? Are the Rodney Kingesque "Can't we all just get along?" pleas harbingers of doom?
What do you think?

 

[Kacey]

The two-party system that exists in this country is something that grew up over time - it was not part of the intent of the framers of the Constitution; nor was the near-complete lock the two-party system currently has on the Electoral College. I feel that it limits the options of the American people in a way that is unfair to all involved. I also feel that it leads to an inappropriate focus on particular issues, such as abortion, while allowing others to be lost in the shuffle, because they are not polarizing issues within or between parties, and are therefore unimportant.

This country was conceived to be a republic (not a democracy - not at the highest level of all, the presidency) because, at the time, the level of communications that we have today were undreamed of, and very few could take the time necessary to travel to the capital to cast electoral votes for their constituents. By default, these representatives were generally the rich, the well-educated - the only ones who could afford the time and money to take the time away from the labor of survival. That is no longer the case, and I think that the Electoral College, as originally conceived, needs a serious overhaul, with an eye toward replacing it entirely with something else.

The split in this country along Democratic/Republican lines creates more problems than it solves - the Congress and Senate were not intended to be the way they are, and I think it is time for that to change as well, for the good of the nation. The concern then becomes: how do we change it for the better? How do we avoid creating a worse problem than the one we currently have? How long do we need to do it right? When - and how - do we start? These are questions to which I do not have answers - but they are questions every person in the country needs to be considering.

 

[Sukerkin]

Absolutely, Kacey.

Over time, it has become the nature of the Democratic system to be adversarial along only a single dividing line.

This 'binary' tendency is ultimately destructive to the process of finding a consensus and acting on it as certan issues become, as you say, 'signatures of difference' and are fought over by the parties whilst more important matters are left to wither on the vine.

 

[jkembry]

The two-party system that exists in this country is something that grew up over time - it was not part of the intent of the framers of the Constitution; nor was the near-complete lock the two-party system currently has on the Electoral College. I feel that it limits the options of the American people in a way that is unfair to all involved. I also feel that it leads to an inappropriate focus on particular issues, such as abortion, while allowing others to be lost in the shuffle, because they are not polarizing issues within or between parties, and are therefore unimportant.

This country was conceived to be a republic (not a democracy - not at the highest level of all, the presidency) because, at the time, the level of communications that we have today were undreamed of, and very few could take the time necessary to travel to the capital to cast electoral votes for their constituents. By default, these representatives were generally the rich, the well-educated - the only ones who could afford the time and money to take the time away from the labor of survival. That is no longer the case, and I think that the Electoral College, as originally conceived, needs a serious overhaul, with an eye toward replacing it entirely with something else.

The split in this country along Democratic/Republican lines creates more problems than it solves - the Congress and Senate were not intended to be the way they are, and I think it is time for that to change as well, for the good of the nation. The concern then becomes: how do we change it for the better? How do we avoid creating a worse problem than the one we currently have? How long do we need to do it right? When - and how - do we start? These are questions to which I do not have answers - but they are questions every person in the country needs to be considering.

Wow Kasey...you hit the nail on the head. Living around the Nation's Capitol (of the U. S.) I have found that I have really become kind of 'jaded' at our government and the way it works...or does not work.

You're right changes need to be made to bring correct priorities (whatever they may be) to the forefront and dealt with for the good of the country and not for the good of the politicians re-election. One recent item that happened 4 blocks from me on Capitol Hill a few months back was a 'non-binding resolution' - I forget on what - was voted on and passed. If the thing is non-binding...what good is it and could that time have been better spent working on legislation.

I remember reading a book by Barry Goldwater that basically said, that once Senators and Representatives arrive on Capitol Hill, they need to think about their service to the people and base their decisions on that. Being that I was very young when he was in office, I don't know his track record...but that statement made sense. Perhaps that is what is missing on The Hill today.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I was inspired in part by this thread about the NCLB act which flew through Congress with wide bipartisan support. Like NCLB, the Patriot Act also had HUGE bipartisan support. So, all these calls for bipartisanship, are they just asking for trouble? Are the Rodney Kingesque "Can't we all just get along?" pleas harbingers of doom?
What do you think?

There should be a hard fought for middle ground on everything. The word bipartisan should scare us.
sean

 

[Empty Hands]

The two-party system that exists in this country is something that grew up over time - it was not part of the intent of the framers of the Constitution; nor was the near-complete lock the two-party system currently has on the Electoral College.

While many of the framers decried parties and "factionalism", a two party system has been with us since the beginning, starting with the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Furthermore, a two (or possibly one, like Japan) party system was inevitable given the system that the framers designed. First past the post voting for individual seats guarantees it.

What we would need to do to get a multi-party system is to incorporate preference voting like Australia and a parliament like many other nations. In a parliamentary system, the percentage vote that each party receives would be the percentage of seats they hold in the parliament. This guarantees a wider voice for smaller parties, and can even give small parties outsized power in situations like Israel where small parties are needed to form governing coalitions.

Of course, such a system has its own drawbacks. You would no longer be voting for a candidate, only a party. Fringe parties with terrible ideals like the BNP in the UK can gain power in such a system they could never gain in our current system. I suppose you just have to weigh the options.

 

[Steve]

I was inspired in part by this thread about the NCLB act which flew through Congress with wide bipartisan support. Like NCLB, the Patriot Act also had HUGE bipartisan support. So, all these calls for bipartisanship, are they just asking for trouble? Are the Rodney Kingesque "Can't we all just get along?" pleas harbingers of doom?
What do you think?

I think our government works best when it works slowly, and this means lots of debate.

In your two example, however, I think there are some mitigating circumstances. In NCLB, there were some flaws in the act itself, but the largest issue with it, in my opinion, is the failure to support those schools needing it. The act was underfunded, acting punitively to identify schools with problems, but offering neither guidance nor funding to help these schools improve.

The patriot act was a result of the Bush Administration taking advantage of a time of almost unheard of solidarity among our politicians and population.

Bipartisan, as a term, isn't bad or good. I think it's a useful word to describe those issues that transcend (or should) any party affiliation.

 

[Nolerama]

I think our government works best when it works slowly, and this means lots of debate.

Good stuff BTW. I agree to an extent. National government should debate the topics more; and major decisions should be available for the general public, in my opinion.

However, making policy known to the public immediately might spark a national security debate... But that's for another thread.

I do think that local government should be proactive and not reactive to foreseeable, quantifiable trends (population shift, poverty rates, economic development, etc.) How great would it be for, say a developing neighborhood, go through its development process and have full articulation with City Hall, social services and the PD.

On a local level, it's not Red vs. Blue. It's about who's for this piece of local legislation and who's not. That's where our Democracy exists. The rest is just a show.

Bipartisan, as a term, isn't bad or good. I think it's a useful word to describe those issues that transcend (or should) any party affiliation.

Totally agree. At least it shows some solidarity in the process of passing government policy.

 

[crushing]

Over bipartisan I prefer nonpartisan, which could possibly be informed by more than just the two major parties as well as by those whose loyalties may not necessarily be to a political party.