I read Mr. Arthur R. Wargo’s letter-to-the-editor in yesterday's Daily Gazette (Why one longtime GOP voter is giving up on it) with particular interest. Mr. Wargo’s culmination of disgust seems to be predicated on the current dysfunctionality of our state government but it clearly transcends that one aspect. It is another glaring example of deteriorating sentiment and support for the major political parties.
No, I am not going to become a Democrat, but will register
as an independent, hoping that someday there will emerge a
strong third party that will force the others to pay more attention
to the needs and wishes of the people and not to special interests
and/or their own selfish agendas.
The burgeoning rank of independents is a clear sign to me anyway that the time for a viable third party to emerge is upon us. Obviously for that to happen, ordinarily “uninvolved” people will have to step forward and become “involved.” Swelling disillusionment logically suggests that the needed candidates will come from the burgeoning rank. Candidates that emerge will come from a different mold. They’ll likely be ordinary people from different walks of life sharing one common coupling of traits. They will be as fed up as you are and they’ll be motivated to be beholden to no one but the taxpayer they represent and they will not let the assumed obstacles in their path to that quest deter them from succeeding. That is currently a rare coupling to encounter.
The problem for the people that step forth, of course, is acceptance as a viable candidate by the electorate. Let’s face it, you won’t be the typical candidate they’ve become accustomed to and even though they’re as fed up as you are, they still might not be able to believe the ingrained obstacles (money, time, special interests, etc.) can be conquered… by you or anyone else. That’s the challenge – can you get the non-believers to believe?
It’s somewhat of a Catch-22. Belief is earned through delivering. To get the chance to deliver, you’ve got to already command enough belief that will translate to votes in order to deliver. A leap of faith is essential at the beginning. I believe if I’m fed up enough to get “involved” then people, like Mr. Wargo, are fed up enough to be willing to take that initial leap of faith.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Guest Post: The Bankruptcy of the Two-Party System
by Damon Eris of Poli-Tea Party
The ongoing debacle in the New York State Legislature in Albany has bolstered the positions of downstate cynics and would-be reformers. At the opening of the Ringling Brothers Circus in Coney Island, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg dubbed the state government "the second greatest show on earth." Former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, on the other hand, has suggested that Albany convene a state constitutional convention, apparently unaware of the irony involved in calling up the arsonists to put out the fire.
The chaos in New York's state government is yet another symptom of the bankruptcy of the two-party system, in which entrenched elites and the special interest groups that back them seek to maintain their hold on power at all costs, and deprive voters of even the opportunity to drive their so-called representatives out of office. It is but one instance of a nationwide phenomenon. Among political scientists it is common knowledge that elections in the United States have become significantly less competitive over the course of the last century. In an Op-Ed for the New York Times in April, entitled 'No Country for Close Calls,' Nate Silver and Andrew Gelman of FiveThirtyEight noted that competitive elections for the House of Representatives are "exceedingly rare." They wrote: "in the past decade, there were 2,175 elections to the United States House of Representatives held on Election Days 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008. Among these, there were 41 instances — about 1.9 percent — in which the Democratic and Republican candidates each received 49 percent to 51 percent of the vote (our calculations exclude votes cast for minor parties). In the 1990s, by contrast, there were 65 such close elections. And their number increases the further one goes back in time: 88 examples in the 1950s, 108 in the 1930s, 129 in the 1910s."
This trend is apparent, and even more pronounced, at state and local levels. As Danny Hakim notes on an article of the power of incumbency in Albany: "Last year, more than half of the 212 legislators in the Senate and Assembly won with more than 80 percent of the vote. Fifty-seven ran unopposed . . . The average senator has served for nearly seven two-year terms." Given such numbers, one could be led to conclude that the people of New York were highly satisfied with their representatives in the state government. But the reality is quite different. Consider the following example. According to the New York State Board of Elections, 161, 786 voters turned out for the 2008 election in the state's 1st Senate district. The State Senate seat was won by Kenneth P. LaValle, who ran unopposed and garnered 63, 058 votes. On the other hand, 80, 692 voters preferred to vote for "Blank" rather than Mr. LaValle when filling out their ballots. The situation is equally dire in our local politics. According to the Shawanagunk Journal, in the upcoming county elections in Ulster, New York, "there are only four candidates running for four seats . . . the four candidates have been cross-endorsed by each of the two major political parties." One of the candidates went so far as to frame what basically amounts to bipartisan back-room dealing as a triumph of democracy: "I'm hoping that it's a testimony to the fact that we've done a good job."
The alleged "coup" in Albany is nothing of the sort. It is merely the latest scuffle between the duopoly parties over who precisely will control the flows of money and power in New York State. The real coup has taken place slowly, over the course of the last century, as the Republican and Democratic Parties have tightened their grip on control of our local, state and federal governments. Though they agree on little else, in virtually every state of the Union the Republican and Democratic Parties have come to the consensus that third party and independent candidates must be kept off our ballots at all costs. Since they view the disenfranchisement of voters as enlightened administration, it is no surprise that they have successfully turned our electoral process into little more than a formality necessary to extend their power and influence for the benefit of their corporate paymasters and to the disadvantage of the people they supposedly represent.
The ongoing debacle in the New York State Legislature in Albany has bolstered the positions of downstate cynics and would-be reformers. At the opening of the Ringling Brothers Circus in Coney Island, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg dubbed the state government "the second greatest show on earth." Former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, on the other hand, has suggested that Albany convene a state constitutional convention, apparently unaware of the irony involved in calling up the arsonists to put out the fire.
The chaos in New York's state government is yet another symptom of the bankruptcy of the two-party system, in which entrenched elites and the special interest groups that back them seek to maintain their hold on power at all costs, and deprive voters of even the opportunity to drive their so-called representatives out of office. It is but one instance of a nationwide phenomenon. Among political scientists it is common knowledge that elections in the United States have become significantly less competitive over the course of the last century. In an Op-Ed for the New York Times in April, entitled 'No Country for Close Calls,' Nate Silver and Andrew Gelman of FiveThirtyEight noted that competitive elections for the House of Representatives are "exceedingly rare." They wrote: "in the past decade, there were 2,175 elections to the United States House of Representatives held on Election Days 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008. Among these, there were 41 instances — about 1.9 percent — in which the Democratic and Republican candidates each received 49 percent to 51 percent of the vote (our calculations exclude votes cast for minor parties). In the 1990s, by contrast, there were 65 such close elections. And their number increases the further one goes back in time: 88 examples in the 1950s, 108 in the 1930s, 129 in the 1910s."
This trend is apparent, and even more pronounced, at state and local levels. As Danny Hakim notes on an article of the power of incumbency in Albany: "Last year, more than half of the 212 legislators in the Senate and Assembly won with more than 80 percent of the vote. Fifty-seven ran unopposed . . . The average senator has served for nearly seven two-year terms." Given such numbers, one could be led to conclude that the people of New York were highly satisfied with their representatives in the state government. But the reality is quite different. Consider the following example. According to the New York State Board of Elections, 161, 786 voters turned out for the 2008 election in the state's 1st Senate district. The State Senate seat was won by Kenneth P. LaValle, who ran unopposed and garnered 63, 058 votes. On the other hand, 80, 692 voters preferred to vote for "Blank" rather than Mr. LaValle when filling out their ballots. The situation is equally dire in our local politics. According to the Shawanagunk Journal, in the upcoming county elections in Ulster, New York, "there are only four candidates running for four seats . . . the four candidates have been cross-endorsed by each of the two major political parties." One of the candidates went so far as to frame what basically amounts to bipartisan back-room dealing as a triumph of democracy: "I'm hoping that it's a testimony to the fact that we've done a good job."
The alleged "coup" in Albany is nothing of the sort. It is merely the latest scuffle between the duopoly parties over who precisely will control the flows of money and power in New York State. The real coup has taken place slowly, over the course of the last century, as the Republican and Democratic Parties have tightened their grip on control of our local, state and federal governments. Though they agree on little else, in virtually every state of the Union the Republican and Democratic Parties have come to the consensus that third party and independent candidates must be kept off our ballots at all costs. Since they view the disenfranchisement of voters as enlightened administration, it is no surprise that they have successfully turned our electoral process into little more than a formality necessary to extend their power and influence for the benefit of their corporate paymasters and to the disadvantage of the people they supposedly represent.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Guest Posting
I am pleased to report that Poli-Tea Party blog author, Damon Eris, has graciously accepted to guest post on The Rotterdam Windmill. Damon is an astute writer who examines and critiques the two-party system and duopoly politics. I hope you’ve already taken the opportunity to explore his blog – there’s a link to it on the sidebar – but if not, I encourage you to check it out.
His latest entry on Poli-Tea, The Ideology of Duopoly and the Infantilization of the American Voter, pointedly illustrates the untapped power of the ranks of independent voters. The post lays bare the fundamental potential ready to erupt and upset the current duopoly dynamic.
His latest entry on Poli-Tea, The Ideology of Duopoly and the Infantilization of the American Voter, pointedly illustrates the untapped power of the ranks of independent voters. The post lays bare the fundamental potential ready to erupt and upset the current duopoly dynamic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
