Both the democrats and republicans are responsible for the decline of the US today.
It is Now April 6 2016
Nothing for the better has changed since I first wrote this article.
This presidential election is a political disaster, and the only way out is for the loyal party voters to bail on their party. Even after Trump won the presidency, the loyal democrat party voters have doubled down on bringing the US to its knees.
Voting for Senators
Congress has failed the United States and its People
This hub focuses on the failure of the US Congress to effectively represent the people of the United States.
For the past one hundred years, the democratic and republican parties have put their party above their country and the people of that country. The goals of each party are diametrically opposite, so it is no wonder that they keep trying to undo anything that the other party accomplished.
This causes a deadly embrace, and a failure of the United States to move forward into prosperity, and accomplishing good for the country and its people. There has been a seesaw effect in congress as one party is in control, it tries to implements its goals, only to have the other party try to undo it when they are in control.
When there is no clear control, both parties spend their time and energy trying to get their way, but usually it just ends up in gridlock. Even when one party is in control of the house or the senate, and even when they have control of both houses, the minority spends its time and energy into becoming a megaton lead weight. The result is no forward movement for either party, or the country, and nothing good for the people.
The Democrats and the Republicans are like siblings fighting over who is going to get the bulk of daddies estate. Neither party has the same goal once they get the estate. But, in both the analogy and in real life the estate comes after the death of the estate, or in the political party, the country.
The founders of this country didn't provide for the tremendous growth of this country, or the significant increase in the size and scope of the central government. The checks and balances of their three branches of government have failed, and continue to fail. The infrastructure of the US government is no longer viable to sustain the country much less move it forward.
SOLUTIOS For Fixing the US Congress
Unless there is a full understanding of the problem, any solution will not make any sense. After writing these five separate but related hubs, it occurred to me that viewers coming across them individually would feel like coming into a movie mystery and not know what is going on.
Below are five issues that should develop the basic reasons for the solution that will be suggested at the end of this hub..
The effect of the existing political system caused by the way congress has done its work since 1791. A division of the United States of America based on the different goals of the two major political parties, Democrats, and Republicans
The current existing congressional system is based on the party system. When the candidate of one party win a seat in congress, it results in the voters that didn’t vote for the winning candidate to lose representation of that office in congress. For the senate, there is an additional seat whereby a draw can be attained with the democrats holding one seat, while the republicans hold the other seat. This creates a null effect for that state as these representations cancel each other out, or cause other states to cumulatively break the tie.
This hub follows up on the reason why both parties don’t work together on the issues of the country. They pull the country to the left, or the right, and then back again, and again. This is a control issue, and the parties goal is to get control of congress, and the presidency to move forward on their goals. The end result is stagnation for the country and its people. This creates most of the major problems in the country caused by the US Government. The party problem does also have an influence in the office of the president of the United States.
Any change to anything can be difficult to implement
- Changing the structure of the US congress is like building a new railroad system in the US. The railroads gave up most of their premium right of ways when the automobile took over in the 1950s. People traveled by car, where they would once go by train. The improvement in passenger air flights didn't help the railroads.
So, the building of a new high speed rail service in the Unites States has been met with very strong opposition. It has the drawbacks of being very expensive, it will take a long time to build, and the current destinations for it don't really make any sense.
I am sure if the information that we have today would have been thought about last century we could have had made better transportation decisions.The same is true of the three branches of the government, and the basic plan for the United States. The US government hasn't kept up with providing the necessary resources of water, electricity, gas, and food for the 21st Century. Now over forty years later they can't afford to make these changes, and even if they did it takes decades. Conservation was the answer over thirty years ago. Conservation doesn't work when the population keeps growing. We grew from two hundred million people to well over three hundred million people. We went from a society that had a fe electric consuming devices, to today when even toasters consume electricity when they are plugged in but off.
The constitution of the United States was intended to be flexible, dynamic and adapt to the needs of the people over time, but it has exceeded it ability to function in the 21st century. Like the buildings of the last century, the new buildings need to be designed with high magnitude earthquake resistance.
The idealistic concept of a nation of the people, by the people and for the people exist in mere rhetoric today. The main problem in getting a solution to fix the political system requires the people to agree on the need for a change. The people can't agree today on much of anything, and that is the result of their loyalty to their political party.
It is a circular problem in that if we could now get the people to agree on bipartisanship over party loyalty, we might be able to get another hundred years out of the current system.
Republicans are Red and Democrats are Blue and never will their be one from these two
These two parties have broken the United States because like their colors they are not unified under one color. So how can two different colors represent a United States. The answer is the states are not united.
The USA Flag is Red, White and Blue but Congress and the President need to be Purple
From 1790 till the modern day version of the democrat and republican parties were formed there was much flux as to the type of government that would be worthy of the Revolution. The republicans and democrats were using different names and names changed as did their philosophy. To go over these distinctions becomes a history lesson and that is not the purpose of this hub.
- The purpose of this hub is to show that the differences betwen the democrats and the republicans have not arisen during this century or even the one before this one. What has happened in this century is the differences between them have become real impediments moving the country forward.
- A dog that can only go left and a dog that can only go right
- Just go in circles,
Imagine a dog sled comprised of red dogs and blue dogs, and they are pulling the entire country. They are strong, powerful dogs and they have the ability to move the biggest loads if they work together. The Red dogs want to go right, and the Blue dogs want to go left.
When the red dogs equal the blue dogs is there any susprise that the sled doesn't move no matter how fiercely the dogs strain against their leads. These dogs are creatures of habit, and they are not much different outside of their preference for direction that the Pavlov dogs.
There is a glimmer of hope every two years when the dogs can either remain on the team or replaced by a dog of any color. I would imagine that any grade school kid with a basic understanding of arithmetic would figue out how the sled would be pulled with more Red dogs or more Blue dogs than half the dogs pulling the sled.
- No bones about it, this is not really a story about dogs, so what else runs in circles, and doesn't move forward? by forward, I mean toward prosperity.
The results of this two year glimmer of hope is that every four years is the real change. So while there may be a change from the four year mark on the following two years the cycle is unpredictable as to which direction the sled will move. History of the last one hundred years will graphically show movement to the left and the right with litte forward movement, and sometimes a backward slide.
Insanity is said to be doing the same thing but expecting different results
Since the 1790s voters have been doing the same thing, and that is voting for the party and not the person. The dog sled has had very few purple dogs, and certainly not enough of them to move the sled forward.
- It is like the American bred German Shepard that has been inbred for so long that they all have bad hips. The same is true of the Red and the Blue dogs in the sled of the US. These dogs resist the color purple because they are inbred to their specific color. The people that select the dogs that pull the sled of the country are themselves partial to either Red or Blue. They have adopted these colors from their parents, and their parents from their parents and so on.
This kind of voting resists intelligent thought and replaces it with with loyalty.
- Loyalty that was instilled in them by their parents, and later through the subliminal preachings of their party. The days of understanding what it really takes to move the country on this sled have been masked by emotion and the unwillingness to make changes. As that would be disloyal.
However, a moment of intelligent thought would show them that the sled is stuck in a left to right and back again motion, and whatever loyalty they have for the party should be directed to the sled, the country, and its people.
The dogs on the sled are well fed, and maybe obese and they are too old to learn new tricks like what it must be like to pull the sled straight and steady. So it is up to the people that vote for what color the dogs are that will pull the sled.
- They know from the past that pure bred Red and Blues don't work. So, they should go for the color purple because it will symbolize only one direction of preference and that is the forward direction.
All of you voters have a dog in this race, and all of you are responsible for the failure of the sled to move forward. It is time to end the search for the guilty, it is you.
This country is a Republic and not a pure Democracy, so it is your representatives in government that make the decisions. Choose them wisely, and not by the ringing bell of Pavlov.
It is a Ruff world out there, stop barking at the Moon and use those frontal lobes.
Purple is a combination of Red and Blue
This hub is not meant to be an article on Art, but to show that the political parties need to represent the people. This representation is partisan if it is a pure Red for the Republicans, or a pure Blue for the Democrats.
Bipartisanship would develop a blend of the Red and the Blue to for a Purple hue. The Reddish Purple for the more Democrat bipartisanship, and a Bluish Purple for the more Republican partisanship. The ideal would be a pure Purple color indicating equal bipartisanship of both the Democrats and the Republicans.
The politicians are supposed to represent the people
The United states is a Republic and not a Democracy. The difference is that the people vote for their representative in congress and the presidency to work for the people, and represent them in government.
The problem for the last one hundred years in the US Government is that the politicians have been representing their party above the wishes of the people This means that the party that won the political office represents on the his party, and his voters, but who is representing the voters that didn't vote for the winning politician. The answer is that no one is representing them, not until their party wins that office.
The real problem is that the Red and the Blue parties don't seen the US in the same way. This means that they don't see the same problems, so how could they see the same solutions?
As history will verify this method of choosing representatives to represent us hasn't moved the country forward. What it has produced is the longest game of the search for the guilty.
More on the government
East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.
This is an old saying, but it can be brought up to date by replacing East with Democrats, and West with Republicans. Direction doesn't matter here, as long as you realize that they are going in opposite directions.
With this political discourse how can the United States, be united. This is not the first time that these two parties have brought the country down and into total chaos. The last time this happened the country went to war with the rival parties. The Civil War was the result of the two political parties seeing the direction of the country diverging based on a fundamental party issue. That issue was slavery, and all that it entailed.
The Civil War was won militarily, but the battles went on, and today there is still some smoldering hot spots. The important point is not the slavery issue per se, but issues that are view totally opposite as was the slavery issue.
The country couldn't resolve the issue of slavery without a war. The country was no longer united by the same US Constitution of its founders, the Articles of Confederation were flying on one part of the country in direct opposition to the US Constitution.
Our Land or Disband
In 2014, there are many issues that are creating an attack on the United States, the political parties themselves
We no longer need a single issue like slavery to divide the country today. The issues today causing the divergence of the country is the core of the goals of the two political parties. The Democrats want the country to go one way, while the Republicans want it to go in an opposite direction.
- This couldn't be any more opposite, then if the two parties were playing a game of chess. One side is black, and the other side is white. The goal of chess, and the apparent goal of the political parties is to win the game. Unfortunately, which ever side wins the game, it is a loss for the country. The reason is obvious, because we are all on the same team, Team USA.
In the process of the chess like game, the US Constitution has been compromised, and distorted by both parties, in order for their side to gain leverage for their goal. Strangely, the wins of both sides seem to lie in residual permanence littering the political and legal sidewalks of the country. It would be like a battle where the losses of one side still stand waiting for resurrection from the next battle. These losses contaminate the goals of both parties, but they adversely affect the citizens of the country.
The major difference of these parties since the US was formed. Over the years it has simplified to the party representing the people, versus the party representing big business. Of course you have heard this since you were growing up, and you know that it is the Democrats and the Republicans respectively.
- Entitlements were created by the Democrats supposedly to help the people, while the lessing of regulations on business, especially banking and finance has helped the business by actions of the Republicans.
In reality, neither of these party actions have helped the people. The real problem is the result of the people, and their obsession to believe in the goals of one or the other political party. They have been doing this before and after the Civil War, and it looks like they will continue until the US literally falls apart.
Loyalty to the political party is actually disloyalty to the United States of America
- If you want the country to change for the better, then you have to change to vote better.
- If you do the same thing at the polling booth then don't expect the results to be any better
We keep electing and reelecting politicians mostly based on their party, and not on their performance. The loyal party voter makes voting decisions on their faith in their party. This takes all the thinking out of the voting process.
A loyal party voter needs only to tick off the candidates identified with their party. I call this the vote for Row A or Row B. This is Vote for the Democrat, or vote for the Republican. Here is the sad part, as we go down the voting card these voters will tick politicians that they don't even know their name, much less their record, or even their goals. They assume that their party has done the necessary vetting of these candidates or incumbents.
Well, they are half right, as the party did vet them, but only from how they will help the party. Helping the party is not the same as helping the people, and not even those people registered with that party. Election after election these one trick pony voters keep ticking without any use of their intelligence. They rely on the Pavlov training of seeing D or R and putting their X every time they see their letter.
Today, even the Republican Party can't seem to agree with themselves
Now when the voters made their choice in the last election, they thought their choices would resolve the congressional gridlock. This is not translating to reality, as it is mutating to another loss of political focus. This time it is discord within the Republican Party.
The point is that loyal party voters should use some intelligence and demand partisanship and a plan for prosperity from their candidates. This should be reinforced at the next election by not reelecting incumbents that failed to perform to moving the country forward.
To do this the voters need to stop their knee jerk voting for the party. The party has been used to giving the voters their choice of candidates, and this has resulted more often than not in voting for the lesser of two evils. The correct choice should be the best of the best.
This won't happen as long as the party is in control of the voters, and the country. The politicians were intended to be are implementers of our will. Looking back through US history we can clearly see the folly in that reasoning. It also shows the poor judgement of having lifetime incumbents in Congress.
It is too late for 2014, but not for 2016
Vote Intelligently not to the ringing Pavlov bell.
The trend till the next election in 2016 will be campaigns, fund raisers, and the same activity that caused the 2008 economic meltdown. From the beginning of 2007 till the summer of 2008, the US Congress was focused on only one thing, the presidential election of 2008.
The failure of congress to do their elected jobs, put the country in the Great Recession, and their fumbled attempt to keep us from a Great Depression is still being felt today. Are you willing to continue the insanity with its known ill effects?
The simple definition of Insanity is doing the same thing, but expecting different results.
The same thing in this case is the loyal party voter.
If a fair number of voters would leave their party and register as independents, the two powerful parties would listen to them, and it would force the parties to produce better candidates. The goal of the independent voters would be to stimulate bipartisan goals, and candidates.
This would be a difficult as making a lion into a vegetarian. This is not impossible, but to do it would require a significant reason to make this change. In this case, a good reason would be based on health benefits. For the political change, the reason would be for the health of the country, and the well being of its people.
Loyal party voters are responsible for the failure of congress
There should be no doubt how different the democrats are from the republicans. Nor should there be any dispute how they can gridlock the congress to a standstill.
The root cause of this gridlock is the loyal party voter. Most loyal party voters are born into their role as a party registered voter. This means that democrats and republican party voters are the product of their parents, and their grandparents. Most people are born into their religion, and their political party.
They become the vote for their party, Row A, or Row B These voters don't make intelligent choices even for the top positions of presidency, and their state senators. So even if they do spend some intelligent thought on these two top political positions they put their ticks all the way down their party's row. They have abdicated their voting rights to the choices made by their party.
The United States was conceived of freedom and liberty, and these voters ignore these privileges to support their party, over their country. They do this like they were born either black or white, and they feel that they must support their party.
Generation after generation their parents have told them and taught them that the Democrats are for the poor people, and the Republicans are for the rich. This fiction has become a truism because of this ingrained party identification. It is hard to break generations of people born into their preference for a political party.It has become black and white instead of shades of gray. Or more accurately, red and blue instead of shades of purple.
I have tried many times to write about this schism in the United States voting process, but I could never get behind the walls of inherited political party preference. My viewpoint is that neither political party has moved the country forward, because they spend most of their time in office fighting with the other party.
Looking back in US history, you will find only fleeting moments of solidarity between the parties. The quest for the party goal is stronger than the quest to move the country forward.
How did the US get to where it is today?
Neither party has the solutions to the problems of the country, but it took the efforts of both parties to bring the country down to its current level of decline.
The decline of the United States started in the 1970s when the Arab oil monopoly tried to teach us a lesson for supporting Israel. Twice during the 70s we experienced a horrific oil shortage that would take the American Automobile Makers crown of superiority in that field, and spin it around allowing the European and Asian automobile makers to get the thin edge of the wedge into the once impenetrable American automobile market.
It also gave the Arab Oil Monopoly bigger profits, as the price of the US gallon of gas went above one dollar for the first time. In 2008, that price was hovering around five dollars. So from the 1970s till 2008 the price of gasoline went steadily up, and so did the foreign automobile market in the US.
Another result of the oil shortages was it created more power for the Arab nation as their oil was a necessity for the world. This would involve the US in wars in the Middle East starting in the 1980s.
How does the preference for which political party become a problem that results in these conditions. It is because both the democrats and the republicans approach these conditions with different goals, solutions, and approaches. So, when the control of the congress and the presidency change from one party to the other party, the politics of the country change as if it was written on a child's etch a sketch. This was a writing instrument for children, that had a top sheet that they would write and draw, and when it was full or they wanted to do something different, the sheet could be cleared simply by pulling it up.
The etch a sketch was more efficient because it resulted in a clear slate. The party power change over had sticky residual conditions that were the subject of a two year and four year time period to try and make the change from one party idea, to the controlling party's idea.
2007 The precursor to the Great Recession of 2008
Now that you have some background to the conditions that prevailed up to 2008, the congress now plays a big part in making the recession possible. 2007 would be the start of a all hands on board election and reelection campaign that would engage all of congress. After eight years of George W Bush, as a Republican president, it was necessary for the Democrats to regain control.
That is why the campaigning for the presidency would start in the beginning of 2007. Everyone was campaigning for their party, every seat in congress that was up for grabs was in play. This was like a major political war of the parties. They would suck every penny they could get their hands on for their election campaign war chest.
Like the game of Monopoly, the winner would be determined by the size of their war chest. This would be really evident in the presidential race within the Democratic party, where a greenie would take down the leading democrat presidential contender. Senator Hillary Clinton was that contender, and she lost to Senator Barack Obama simply because she ran out of money. She even loaned her campaign more than five million dollars, but that was nothing compared to the hundreds of millions in the Obama war chest.
- Even today, no one knows how Obama took down the powerful Hillary Clinton, but it couldn't have been done without the Democrat party taking sides. This had to be some sort of inside take down of Hillary Clinton. Nothing else could explain how a non accomplished Senator could take down a Senior Nationally recognized politician as Hillary Clinton.
The point to be made here is that in general all of congress was campaigning for themselves or their party. It wasn't only the presidency that was in play, it was the Trifecta, both houses of congress and the presidency.
The United States Congress Fill it up wisely
The US Congress it is your future so plan it wiselySource: http://www.123rf.com/
All the congressional guard was at the campaign front
From 2007 till the economic collapse shortly before the presidential election, the government was not looking out for the people, they were looking out for the party. So like the proverbial deer in the headlights, the economy collapsed making the sinking of the Titanic look similar in comparision.
Even to the last debates among the presidential candidates, the economy was not a major issue. President George W Bush who was one of the few politicians not running for office, did little, actually nothing to help the people with the quick rising costs of oil and gasoline. Congress wouldn't even remove the federal tax from gasoline even for the summer months.
Reelection was the only issue that the government worked on from 2007 till the economic collapse.
This is an example of how the democrat and republican parties have put party above and beyond the country. Also, neither one of that acted to prevent or mitigate the economic collapse. And both parties working together after the economic collapse couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Yet, the economic collapse didn't wake up the voters to change their voting for their party. Neither party saw the collapse coming, and neither party had a viable solution that would bring the country on a course for recovery, much less for prosperity.
It is too late for the loyal party voters to change to intelligent voting for 2014, but they could in 2015
Loyal party voters should free themselves of their self imposed voting shackles, and vote for the best candidate regardless of party ties.
In 2016, don't vote to reelect incumbents that haven't performed regardless of their party. If an incumbent didn't perform then there are no excuses. If the incumbent was blocked by the other party, then they failed to seek common ground their goal.
The search for the guilty ends at the voting booth. Politicians rely on the short memory and longtime loyalty of their party voters. The voters should take control by not reelecting incumbents just based on party loyalty.
Loyalty to the country should be the banner waived by all the voters.
Treating the politicians like a home town sport's team is wrong because the US only has one team, and when they lose, we all lose. It doesn't matter who lost the game, the important fact is that we lost the game.
Allowing the political party to do your thinking, and take Carte Blanche with your vote should be unAmerican, and unintelligent.
Putting this in term of your personal life, voting on the basis of party loyalty, is like submitting yourself to having a guardian, or care taker. Is that what you would let somebody do to you?
The next step is how do "We The People" get our country back from the party?
2007 became the new 1970s
Just as the oil crisis in the 1970s started the decline of the United States as the manufacturing giant of the world, starting in 2007, the US would take the world down with it.
The major change from the seventies was the US would get involved in globalization as much of its manufacturing industry would be done in other parts of the world where the costs were cheaper. The financial industry had escaped from its US regulatory bonds creating the dot com and then the sub prime bubbles. Both of these creations also escaped the bonds of prudent business decisions. It was more like the last helicopter leaving Vietnam during the last day of the war. Moronic leaps and bounds were being made to get on board before the ride was over.
It is important to note, that neither party did much to stop the inevitable bubble collapse of the sub prime frenzy. It started with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. a Depression-era banking laws, knocking down the firewall between commercial banks, which take deposits and make loans, and investment banks, which underwrite securities.
This was seen as a way to help American banks grow larger and better compete on the world stage. at least at that time/
It is ironic, that this act which was created after the great depression would be responsible for the great recession of 2008. Many people call the 2008, a recession because the congress save the day by bailing out the companies that actually were responsible for the economic collapse, but its impact was as devastating as a depression.
It should be noted that none of the attempts to get the US out of the great depression were successful. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt may have had good intentions by creating the Social Security System, but it didn't halo the depression. The depression was finally wrestled free by WWII. Then it was followed by more than a decade of what could be called prosperity.
Unfortunately, the 2008 great recession which is still in effect today, cannot be helped by the continual wars engaged by the US, nor the prosperity from being the 1950s manufacturing giant.
Who Represents YOU in Congress or the Presidency?
Who represents you in Congress or the Presidency when your candidate loses the election?
The simple answer is that no one is representing you, and the reason has to do with partisanship of the political parties. It is very rare than an independent would win a seat in congress. So majority winners are either from the Democrat or Republican party.
These two parties have always been divergent in their party goals. If the US congress was filled with bipartisan politicians, you would still have adequate representation no matter which candidate won. However. this was never the case from 1791 till the present.
Voting for the party is not voting for the best candidate, it is a unilateral act of blind loyalty. Voting for the best candidate is the intelligent act of voting that will benefit the country, no just a political party.
Remember in your early school days learning fractions. The solutions to add fractions with different bottom numbers (denominator) was to find the least Common Denominator. Then you could add the top numbers (numerator) to get the answer. The answer would be the sum over the common denominator. If the numbers could be divided simply then you could reduce the answer further.
- The key here was to find the least common denominator, and that could be as simple as multiplying the two denominators together.
- The two party system poses a problem because they are like fractions with different denominators. But unlike fractions, there is no simple solution for coming up with a common denominator.
Quite frankly one of the problems is that no one is really looking to find the common denominator. Finding that common denominator for the political parties would make the country a whole number, or at least a rational fraction. Today, we see the country as an irrational fraction, or a complex or imaginary number. However you see the result is a value that makes no sense.
Pick your political candidate not your party
Why is there no common ground to unite the Democrats and the Republicans?
The Democrat and the Republican parties view the country from opposite values, and opposite viewpoints. Their viewpoints and their goals are so different that they cannot be resolved without adopting the viewpoint of the other party.
- Consider that if one party was on side of a pipe that was clogged at some point, and the other party was at the opposite side, they would still be able to find the clog if they went towards each other. To explain why both parties cannot find the clog, we need understand that they are not even looking at the same pipe. There is a clog in some pipe, but neither party knows which pipe to look at to fix the clog.
- The result is that neither party following their viewpoint will actually find the clog, unless they accidentally stumble on to it.
The Democrats focus on the care and feeding of the working people, and the Republicans focus on the care and feeding of big business. There are causal relationships between the working people and big business, but like a seesaw balance is the important factor to put it into equilibrium. This takes a bipartisan approach to keeping the balance.
What has happened over the last couple of centuries is that the party in control weights down their end of the seesaw, and when the control changes to the other party than their end starts to go down. We can equate balance with the people being represented no matter which party or which candidate wins.
What are the effects of partisanship in Congress and the Presidency?
When both the democrats and the republican have extremely different goals as they most often do, only the party in control works on their goal. Working on their goal is representing the voters that voted for that party. The voters of the losing party are like pool players waiting for the current player to run the game or lose the turn.
There is a list of items that is being worked on in congress, but the controlling party has the better chance of accomplishing their items. The reason that you voted for a party or their candidate was to get the items passed that you were interested in getting them done through their representation. When they lose, the other party doesn't have these items on their agenda. You are without any real political representation in congress, at least until the next election.
- We saw this during the George W Bush, and Barack H Obama presidencies. The voters of the losing party spent the entire election term trying to undermine the winner, and the controlling party in congress.
- This created a lot of activity in congress and in the presidency, but like running in place on a treadmill, it didn't get us anywhere. In fact, there were times like in 2008, when we couldn't keep up with the speed of the treadmill, and we fell flat on our faces.
What is the solution for balancing the political parties
Any solution has to start with changing the traditional voting by party loyalty. That means don't surrender your voting power at registration time. Make the parties work to get your vote.
The fist step would be to register as an independent. We know from history how the parties pander to the independents, especially in the close races. The voters that have held out by not giving any party their registered vote, are many times the difference for either party to win the election.
- Now, if more voters would hold out from giving pure allegiance to their party, both parties would vie for their vote. The gain would be that the parties would have to try to put up better candidates because they wouldn't automatically have the votes from those that registered with the party.
- The voters can then vote for the candidates rather than the party. It shouldn't matter which party won that position because the best candidate won. The better candidate would also be more inclined to be bipartisan because the party pressure would be reduced by increased independent voters.
For voters to get the leverage they need to get their representation in politics, they need to pick their candidates instead of their party. Sure, registering as independents exclude you from voting for the party convention, but that is usually a party conjuring trick. The party always gets you to select the candidate that they want you to select.
As more loyal party voters move towards independence, the more that both parties will increase the quality of their candidates because they can't count on the vote of the independents.
This was a long hub to get a simple idea across, but that is because party loyalty is an emotional choice and not a logical one. The current system because of the divergent goals of the democrats and the republicans is partisan. The migration from the loyal party voter to an independent can force the parties to make their goals more convergent to attract the uncommitted voters.
Ending political party loyalty will also end gridlock in the US Congress.
It is one thing for people to show loyalty to their home sports team. So even when the home team has a horrible season, they still support the team, saying, waiting until next year. This means that next year their team will do better, and even win the series.
- Unfortunately, this team loyalty has spread to the way that voters are loyal to their political party. The difference between sports team loyalty and party loyalty is that when the sport team loses, it is only a game. When the party loses the game has serious consequences for the country. And in the latter case, next year is the next election. Two years, fours years, and especially six years is a long time for the team to be on a losing streak.
- Then, when the election finally comes around, the voters use their sports type loyalty to keep the same bad players in the game.
The game of life is much more serious than the game of sports, so let us treat it differently.
One of the consequences in political loyalty is gridlock in the congress. I would like to suggest a new structure for congress that will lessen the political gridlock.
I have written two hubs on how party wins cause the voters of the other party to lose their representation in the US political system.
So my solution involves changing the structure of Congress to represent more of the people.
Did I forget to mention that the new plan requires larger facilities
Solution to reduce or end gridlock in congress
It will be simpler to use the changes to be made in the Senate for the proposed solution. The House is more complex only because it has more members, and the cycle is shorter.
The current structure of congress has existed in concept since the beginning of the US. The current size of congress is 425 members in the house, and 100 members in the senate. These large numbers for the House is a result of increased population. The senate increases by two members for every state, and there are now 50 states.
So 525 people in congress represent the well over 300 million people in the United States. When you look at the size of congress compared to the total population, its size is not that large. My solution will increase the size of the senate by another 50 senators. It will increase the size of the House by by 850 representatives.
Current Senate is 100 senators, with two senators for each state.
- Proposed Senate is 150 senators, with three senators for each state.
STATE X Senator 1 Party Y and
Senator 2 is Party Y
The problem that causes gridlock in the Senate is that the two senators can be from either party, or both from the same party. When one party has both senators from a state, that means that the voters of the other party will not be represented due to the fact that the seated party has a different agenda, then the party that didn't get elected for the senate in that state.
Party Y controls the senate for State X, while Party Z sits the game out.
STATE X Senator 1 Party Y and
Senator 2 is Party Z
This is the true gridlock situation as Party Y can cancel out the vote from Party Z, and vice versa. As both parties don't compromise, then the standoff is just a non moving tug of war. The battle than shifts to the other states, and that is determined the same way state by state. The resultant cumulative party numbers then determines the passing or blocking of legislation as a result of the majority versus the minority parties.
Currently, the Independent party has not been a player in this senate structure, and it doesn't look like that will change in the future, at least not under the current system.
The Proposed Solution New Seante Paradigm
Each state will add a new senators to the existing two senators.
- The new structure will fix the party to one senator.
Current Senate for State X
- Senator 1 could be a D, an R, or an I
- Senator 2 could be a D, an R, or an I
Proposed Change from two senators per state to three senators
- Senator 1 'D'
- Senator 2 'R'
- Senator 3 'I'
The voters will vote for all three senators every six years, With the exception of the many independent parties most of the voters will always have representation in their state at the senate level.
As the Democrats and the Republicans are equally represented, the control of the state would depend on the which of them got the Independent Senator to vote for their bill or against it. Now the Democrats and the Republican could pass a bill without the vote of the Independent senator, but that would take a bipartisanship gesture.
- This is the key to this solution, because of the odd number of senators, ties would be minimized and only occur with an abstain vote. To get two votes out of three, there would be a necessity of compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans, or either of them enlisting the vote of the Independent senator.
The proposed Senate Structure increases the number of senators by total of 50. The additional senators by itself wouldn't solve the gridlock, but by fixing the party for each senator to result in all the parties being represented does solve gridlock.
The odd number of senators also encourages compromise between them in order for the prevailing party to win a vote. This is done on each state level and the cumulative control determines the vote for the country. The current system totally fails at both the state and the country level,
If the even number of states becomes an issue providing some form of gridlock, the we could add Washington DC in as a new state, even if only for voting purpose. This would be somewhat like when the Vice President can vote in congress during a tie.
I realize that this is a radical approach to curing gridlock because in order to implement it there would be opposition that would generate gridlock. It would take several constitutional amendments to make these changes, but that is where the people can exert their power.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. It could also end in one step, if that step is on a landmine. I am unanimous in this quest for a new political voting paradigm.
The larger number of senators and representatives will require a huge overhaul in facilities, but that is the result of poor planning when they first built Washington DC. The country did grow from 4 million people and 13 states to over 300 million people with 50 states.