Political Science Professors Walter Dean Burnham and Thomas Ferguson have published “Americans are sick to Death of Both Parties; Why Our Politics is in Worse Shape than we Thought” in Alternet. The article was posted December 18, 2014.
Burnham was an expert witness on behalf of the New Party, twenty years ago, when it challenged the ban on fusion in Minnesota. When that case, McKenna v Twin Cities Area New Party, reached the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the decision. Rehnquist upheld the ban on fusion, and in his decision, Rehnquist quoted Burnham out-of-context, to make it seem as though this eminent political scientist supported the ban on fusion, when the truth was the exact opposite. The decision in the McKenna case is the only U.S. Supreme Court decision in history to uphold a ballot access law on the basis that the nation has an interest in a “two-party system.” Thanks to Independent Political Report for the link to the article.
Richard, I wonder if “…Rehnquist quoted Burnham out-of-context, to make it seem as though this eminent political scientist supported the ban on fusion..?” Could it have been Rehnquist was such an ardent supporter of the “Two Party System” only, and used this case to help hold the fragile Two Party System together, notwithstanding what the voters might actually prefer?
Without radical reform of campaign finance laws, and a consequent and DRASTIC reduction of the amount of money that legally finds its way into our elections, this country will forever remain governed by two parties, and third parties will forever be consigned to a desperate search for “sugar daddies” to self finance, or bankroll a candidate here…a campaign there…in what my child would call “onesie twosies.”
When we resign ourselves to the false equivalency of money and “free speech,” we concomitantly consecrate the “duopoly” in perpetuity. Wealth is invested in elections in the pursuit of more power and more wealth. And wealthy people are, for the most part, not fools, or at least not prone to making foolish investments.
With apologies to him in advance, I’ll amplify a sentiment that AI, above, expressed in a recent post. The notion that wealth can be invested, unfettered, in the political process is at the root of most of our political problems, certainly including the inability of third parties to gain significant traction. Posts on this website cheer a third party candidate winning some county office in California, or a third party candidate getting a double digit % return for $36 in campaign expenditures, or an improvement in national totals by some paltry percentage (or portion of a percentage) in one election cycle over another, but let’s face it…third parties are getting nowhere near the success that even qualify them as being “third” parties. They’re losers. It comes down to the W’s and the L’s – not the percentages. Third parties lose in overwhelming numbers. Count the W’s over the past 100 years and face facts. Third parties will continue to put up “L’s” unless our corrupt campaign finance laws are torn apart and rewritten.
Again…wealthy political donors are making investments. They’re engaging in what amount to commercial transactions. Those who decry “evil” government overregulation and champion personal freedoms doled out in proportion to checkbook balances and simultaneously bleat over the suppression of third party candidate’s efforts and selective suppression of voter registration efforts and voter’s exercise of their right to vote – those people are their own worst enemies. You cannot…just CANNOT…have successful third parties with effectively unfettered campaign contributions. The money will be bet on one or two horses – even both in may instances…but not three. Rich people are just not stupid. They know a cornered market when they see it.
Rehnquist was a dishonest person, as the only biography ever published about him documents. In 1964 he challenged African-American voters at the polls in Phoenix, very aggressively. When he was up for confirmation in the U.S. Senate for Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, he was challenged on that and he denied he did it, but the evidence that he did it is very strong, as the book documents. This isn’t the only example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada
Baronscarpia: You hit the nail on the head in the most factual and eloquent way, that this ole country boy could ever come close to composing.
Call me a communist, a socialist, or whatever, but the only way 3rd parties and Independents will ever have a level playing field, is when all candidates have an equal threshold to meet to get on the ballot (and I think filing fees are as close to accomplishing such as anything), and most important of all, ALL candidates must be financed SOLELY by a government public financing scheme whereby each candidate – regardless of party or the lack thereof – is give XXX dollars, and no other dollars from any other source can be used directly or indirectly to promote a candidacy. Additionally, ALL candidates must be invited to participate in any Debate, and the media – printed as well as electronic – MUST give equal time to all candidates, stiff penalties from the long arm of the law being used to enforce such.
And it would not hurt to accomplish such, by having term limits for every elective office from the Courthouse to the White House. But we know such will never happen, because too many Americans have been conned into believing that such would not be “the American way.”
This is why I really wonder if the average American voter is as “put out” with the current Two Party System as some would attempt to have us believe. For if they were, as you point out, 3rd party and Independent candidates would receive more than single digit percentages of the votes in the average election they are involved in. And there would be at least a dozen or so 3rd party or Independent members of every state legislature, and both Houses of Congress likewise would have a similar makeup.
And, in conclusion, if the American voters were as “fed up” as some say they are, the last time a presidential election would have been thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives would have been in 2012 – not 1824.
NONSTOP minority rule gerrymanders in the USA since 1776.
Too many math MORON polisci and law schoool profs to count.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — regardless of ALL of the zillions of math MORONS in the U.S.A.
Due to SCOTUS, lots of MORONS since 1932 apparently think that the ONLY vote that counts is for Prez/VP.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Thanks, Richard. As I’ve stated before I would support public financing of elections if and only if all other sources of financing were eliminated, and then I would support it enthusiastically. I must admit I don’t understand your citation. Are the contributions allocated to federal political parties the only funds expended on elections in Canada? Also, does providing tax credits for political contributions have the effect of limiting contributions within the full scheme employed in Canada?
I would support what you propose, AI. Unfortunately we are apparently unable to get past this ridiculous notion that regulation of campaign finance is an impingement of free speech. It is not. If it is, then perhaps someone could make the argument that bribery of elected officials is also an expression of free speech.
Having said that, I hope Justice Scalia doesn’t read this website.
Tony – ignore this post, would you? I’m just being facetious. Relax…have another cigarette.
By the way, AI, here is my ideal set of campaign finance reforms:
1) Eliminate all PACS and SuperPACS. If union members or corporate employees want to make a contribution, fine…make one. In their own names.
2) Contributions can be made only to candidates for whom the contributor would be able to vote in the final election. That is, only people can make contributions, since (so far anyway) corporations can’t vote. Thus one can only contribute to presidential candidates, or candidates who are running to be one’s senator, governor, congressman, etc. Think that impinges on your right to free speech? How do I say this in constitutional legalese..um…”tough tarts.” You can’t VOTE for a senatorial candidate in another state. Isn’t THAT an impingement on your right to free speech?
3) Campaigns cannot transfer funds to other campaigns (that goes on a LOT more than most people know, and in HUGE amounts).
4) No “war chests” – any funds left over after the campaign folds go to the treasury of whatever govermental unit the candidate was hoping to represent. Want to run for reelection? Fine…start over again in two or four or six years.
5) The candidate will be held personally responsible for any and all unpaid debts of the campaign.
6) ALL contributions will be recorded and made available to the public.
7) And for all of these concessions, rich people will be allowed to make a huge, fantastically high total of contributions to any single campaign. I’m thinking of an amount that is obscene and ludicrous, like maybe, oh…$10,000? Is that enough to satisfy Soros and the Koch brothers, I wonder? But I would be willing to consider lowering that amount.
8) Contributions to political parties would be unlimited, since they would not be able to bankroll any candidates since they can’t vote for any candidates. Go ahead. Have your big party every four years. Who cares who paid the caterer?
9) Advertisements in any media naming any candidates can be purchased only by the campaign committee of the candidate himself or herself or by any of his or her opponents. Nobody else. Bite me, Citizens United.
Put this into place and THEN you will see the “duopoly” blown to pieces.
Basically agree with you, Baronscarpia.
The problem with most 3rd partisans and many Independents, is they are so “principled” they are paralyzed.
That’s one problem, yes. Among many.
I can think of five others.
The article uses the turnout for the Georgia general election in 1942 Turnout for the Democratic primary was much higher.