Something got me to thinking about the two party system. For the first 100 years+, there were 8 or more different parties with enough horsepower to elect Congressmen that rose and fell. When parties failed to represent a significant voting bloc, a new party rose up. Then during the period between the Civil War and 1920 progressives gained traction in academia then the media then in politics then in the judiciary.
Following the Civil War, there were negative shifts in American governance that accompanied the long overdue emancipation of the slaves. The 10th Amendment, states rights, and the right to secede were effectively shredded to the detriment of the rights of every American since regardless of race or class.
The income tax was allowed by USC Amendment after repeatedly being declared unconstitutional by the courts.
Then something popular but terrible happened. The 17th Amendment passed... and we haven't had a serious 3rd party threaten the R's and D's since. It allowed for the direction election of Senators which would supposedly make them more responsive to the voters and diminish party control. Does anyone feel better represented or that parties and their financiers are less powerful now?
When the legislatures elected Senators and a Senator did something you didn't like, you went to your state rep or state senator who you probably knew... and gave them an ear full. A Senator can easily ignore the voice of 1 out of millions. It is difficult to get enough voices to get heard. But one common person acting through their state legislator could influence a Senator if they represented the view of enough people. One legislator out of maybe 150 meant alot to a US Senator.
Over the same period the House was distanced exponentially from the people they represented. In 1800, 5.3 million people were represented by 106 Congressmen from two parties- a 50,000:1 ratio. In 1850, it was roughly double that but still a very manageable number at 100K:1 but with 6 parties. By 1900, it had more than doubled again to 213K:1 (4 organized parties). The ratio reached 350k:1 in 1950 one independent and the rest R's and D's.
By the year 2000, the two sides of the R/D coin had solidified their strangle hold on DC with an "unAmerican" power sharing structure firmly in place. Reps were safely insulated from their constituents by a 650K:1 represention ratio.
The only way to win and hold an office like that is money. That coupled with the accummulation of power and wealth in the Federal gov't logically led to the system we have now where the two parties and most of their elected members get and keep power through their party and those who pay for their campaigns... not through representing their districts/states. The system is predictably rife with corruption.
I have a simple proposal. We need to repeal the 17th Amendment and pass an Amendment saying that no Representative can have a district larger than 200K people and that all campaign contributions must come from within the area represented.
A regular person should be able to win an election with shoe leather and a relatively few good friends/supporters.
Following the Civil War, there were negative shifts in American governance that accompanied the long overdue emancipation of the slaves. The 10th Amendment, states rights, and the right to secede were effectively shredded to the detriment of the rights of every American since regardless of race or class.
The income tax was allowed by USC Amendment after repeatedly being declared unconstitutional by the courts.
Then something popular but terrible happened. The 17th Amendment passed... and we haven't had a serious 3rd party threaten the R's and D's since. It allowed for the direction election of Senators which would supposedly make them more responsive to the voters and diminish party control. Does anyone feel better represented or that parties and their financiers are less powerful now?
When the legislatures elected Senators and a Senator did something you didn't like, you went to your state rep or state senator who you probably knew... and gave them an ear full. A Senator can easily ignore the voice of 1 out of millions. It is difficult to get enough voices to get heard. But one common person acting through their state legislator could influence a Senator if they represented the view of enough people. One legislator out of maybe 150 meant alot to a US Senator.
Over the same period the House was distanced exponentially from the people they represented. In 1800, 5.3 million people were represented by 106 Congressmen from two parties- a 50,000:1 ratio. In 1850, it was roughly double that but still a very manageable number at 100K:1 but with 6 parties. By 1900, it had more than doubled again to 213K:1 (4 organized parties). The ratio reached 350k:1 in 1950 one independent and the rest R's and D's.
By the year 2000, the two sides of the R/D coin had solidified their strangle hold on DC with an "unAmerican" power sharing structure firmly in place. Reps were safely insulated from their constituents by a 650K:1 represention ratio.
The only way to win and hold an office like that is money. That coupled with the accummulation of power and wealth in the Federal gov't logically led to the system we have now where the two parties and most of their elected members get and keep power through their party and those who pay for their campaigns... not through representing their districts/states. The system is predictably rife with corruption.
I have a simple proposal. We need to repeal the 17th Amendment and pass an Amendment saying that no Representative can have a district larger than 200K people and that all campaign contributions must come from within the area represented.
A regular person should be able to win an election with shoe leather and a relatively few good friends/supporters.
