Sean Scallon, who has written a book on third party politics, expands on his argument for non-partisan elections in this article at EtherZone:
Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer decided to break ranks. He was a conservative but had always run for office as a Democrat, a lean towards the partisan tilt of his State Assembly district in eastern Wisconsin near Manitowoc. His votes had touched off a primary challenge from a liberal member of the party. So instead of taking the risk of losing because he was his own man and didn’t follow the party line, he decided to run as an independent.
Of course it easy to go this course when you are a sitting member of the state legislature and the voting public in the district already knows you. Even so, it will still be difficult for him to raise money without one of the two major-party campaign committees paying his bills. Now picture yourself as candidate without office trying to do the same thing.
There’s nothing in the Constitution of the United States that even mentions political parties or factions of any kind in the role of government. They came about well after the document was ratified in 1787. Parties have always justified their existence as ensuring the blessings of liberty and democracy by keeping each other honest and on their toes. But in this day and ages of parties adhering to starkly different ideological viewpoints and using all manner of discipline and coercion to try and keep their members in line, what we see are parties more akin to socialist political entities rather than traditional American ones. Even in a state like Wisconsin, where party control is traditionally supposed to be weak, legislative campaign committees and caucuses dictate their candidates’ votes in office with control of the purse string and seniority on committees. In so doing they have harden both major parties into warring camps rather than partners in government.
But while the state capitol in Madison (and Washington D.C. for that matter) resembles a World War I battlefield with its political equivalent of artillery barrages, trench warfare and no-man’s land covered by barbed wire, local government in the rest of the state functions without partisan rancor. Not that there is peace and harmony, but with seats on county, village and township boards along with city councils and mayors offices all designated non-partisan, the two sides of any concern over the budget, road maintenance or garbage fees, is dealt with rather than becoming part of the back and forth bickering that finds both sides looking to score political points rather than accomplishing what they were elected to do.
Perhaps it’s time then to bring practice of non-partisanship from the bottom up.
Only one state legislature in the nation designates its member’s non-partisan, meaning no party whatsoever, and that’s Nebraska’s (it’s also a unicameral legislature, another reform well worth considering). Minnesota’s once was (it reverted to partisan designation in the mid-1970s). This is not to say that members of the Nebraska state legislature don’t identify with political parties in particular, many of them do. But what it means is there’s no divide of seats in the chamber, no first consideration of the party line and no worry that a vote to make the best decision for the state doesn’t end up costing a member funding for his or hers next re-election campaign.
A non-partisan legislature will also be boon to those outside the two-party monopoly (or perhaps a better description is the two-party trust given that a monopoly is a single company overlording a particular field of business. Here there are two or more companies colluding to control the market.). Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and Socialists of all stripes could run for the state legislature without having to worry about competing against the big two with little money or organization. They could also work in coalition with the majors to back a candidate in a particular Assembly or Senate district. The fluidity to the political system that a non-partisan legislature would create would make it easier for bills and resolutions to be debated and worked over without the calcifying effect that partisan politics has had on the Wisconsin state legislature over the past decade and a half. It would eliminate the partisan campaign finance scandals such hardening of party lines created. It also can eliminate the need to gerrymander such districts to favor one party or another. The same could also be said for closely contested legislatures across the country. Indeed, California’s budget crises could have been solved more quickly without parties trying to whip deal-making legislators into line. Perhaps a way to mitigate the affect the newly passed Prop. 14 and the establishment of so-called “jungle primaries” where all the candidates of all parties run on a single ballot, is to create a proposition which would have said candidates be declared officially non-partisan.
George Washington warned against the “spirit of the party” that would paralyze the nation in factional strife whether by region or by economics throughout his term in office. Little did he realize how ideology would make such factionalism even more contentious. To set free state legislators to do what’s right instead of chaining them to a party standard, perhaps it’s time for Wisconsin and more states like her to work as its local governments work every day, without regard to party or faction.
Thanks one an all for your comments and thanks to Red Phillips for putting this article on the IPR website.
It may well be parties and factions are inevitable in politics. What has become disturbing over the past few decades is the way party discipline and gamesmanship has affected public policy, in exactly the way Washington feared.
Once upon a time, party identity was much more fluid had to do primarily with region, class, race, religion and so forth. All of these are still factors in party ID but the major parties much more ideological. We used to have liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. The scene was much more fluid and regional interests were just as important in determining legislation as party was. Politicians didn’t wonder “what’s in it for the party?” But now, more and more, its becoming the other way around as Tea Partiers will soon find out when they get to Congress or their respective state legislatures.
If there’s anything socialistic which has crept into American its the way party has become and important party of American political action. This disturbing trend has become particularly true on the GOP side to the point where they decide policy on the basis of “democratic centralism” (debate behind closed doors, united front after decision has been made). This is what caused the GOP to lose Congress in the first place, dissent was ruthlessly squashed.
An official non-partisan legislature hopefully can eliminate such thinking. Legislators won’t have to worry about the party line if there is no party to represent. And it will be much, much easier for persons from non-major parties to get elected. I’m convinced my friend Ben Manski would have won a seat in the Wisconsin State Assembly if he didn’t have to run as Green in a Democrat district. He might disagree, but for many voters, party is their only way to make decisions in the voting booth, which is too bad for worthy candidates who can’t get major party barrier, especially if you represent a non-major party.
It may well be legislators already represent a party label even if its not official. But they won’t have to be slaves to it or bow to the will of its leaders. They can do the people’s business without having to worry about party discipline.
It easy to think of politics as game because it has winners and losers. But it’s much too serious for that. But if such a mentality continued led by people who job it is to obtain power instead of doing what’s right, we’ll all lose in the end.
* California Secessionist Parties – also see Bear Flag Party ………
* Cascadian National Party
[Lake: both these and all other Cascadian entities were floundering in the early century and are ‘crash and burn’ at this time ………..]
What have the pulled off except electing Republicans? Which, as the record shows, is not going to limit the size, scope or power of government at any level.
Party labels convey information to voters. It is up to the parties to what degree they protect their brand in choosing candidates and to what extent they want to build a potentially winning coalition. In some cases states mandate that decision for parties, which should never be the case. Nor should states subsidize some parties by funding their conventions or primaries. Ballot access barriers should be removed as well.
Ziegelbauer is a good guy, a very honest, sensible conservative, whether as a Democrat or Independent. I agree that party labels can be misleading at times (Rino’s and Dino’s especially). Just won’t get rid of them that easily, and there will still be ideological caucuses in so-called “non-partisan” legislatures, county boards, or even city councils. Need to find those who agree that government needs to be reduced and limited in size, power, and cost, at all levels. The party labels are irrelevant, as long as those principles are followed. Look to the Tea Parties for how to pull this off.
The first one.
A party is a free speech word(s) by a person’ name to give the voter in the ballot box more information about the person. That’s helpful.
This time, Ogle is correct.
I wrote; “A party is a free speech word(s) by a person’ name to give the voter in the ballot box […]”
Sorry, should have said “voter in the voting booth”.
A party is a free speech word(s) by a person’ name to give the voter in the ballot box more information about the person. That’s helpful.
BTW, the Free Parliamentary Party is on the list posted by Darryl, because I emailed the web designer about the party. Notice how they don’t have the Pot, Environmentalist or Free Marijuana Parties?
All it takes is an email message, and the other words may get on the list…there is no threshold.
In California, the threshold set by the state is about 90,000 members, or maybe 180,000 signatures. Thresholds vary depending on who sets them.
The USA Parliament, Inc., for example, has a threshold of 1%. (technically .99% plus one vote)
To elect 100 names, we allo0w up to about 165 nominees, since about 135 to 165 names fit easily onto an 8 1/2″ x 11″ piece of paper, plus a federal voter registration form. Once that threshold (165 names?) is achieved, then it’s a matter of supply and demand. If the demand is greater than 165, then ask for a nominator and seconder. If the demand is still greater then ask for say ten signers per name, etc., etc.
There is no ballot access problem with The USA Parliament, Inc.’s elections, and party names (or independent) are used to simply to give the voter more information.
Yes. And, furthermore, getting rid of the label puts those parties which don’t have a lot of money to advertise their candidates at an even greater disadvantage against the ones that do.
http://dcpoliticalreport.com/PartyLink.htm
Political Parties
* Airenson Socialist Party
* Alaskan Independence Party of Alaska
* America First Party
* American Party
* America’s Independent Party
* American Patriot Party
* American Beer Drinker’s Party
* American Heritage Party of Washington
* American Independent Party of California – Affiliated with the Constitution Party
* American Independent Party of Massachusetts
* American Nationalist Union
* American Nazi Party
* American Reform Party – A splinter group of the Reform Party
* American Synthesis Party
* American Third Position Party
* Autonomy Party
* Being Human Party of Utah
* Boston Tea Party
* British Reformed Sectarian Party of Florida,
* California Secessionist Parties – also see Bear Flag Party.
* Cascadian National Party
* Center Party
* Centre Party
* Christian Party of Florida
* Common Good Party
* Common Sense Party – (Alternate Site),
* Commonwealth Party
* Communist Party USA,
o Young Communist League USA
* Committee for a Unified Independent Party
* Concern for People Party of Colorado
* Concerned Citizens Party of Connecticut – Affiliated with the Constitution Party
* Confederate National Party
* Conservative Parties:
* Constitution Party
* Cool American Party
* Cool Moose Party of Rhode Island
* Corrective Action Party
* Covenant Party of the Northern Mariana Islands
* Creator’s Right Party
* Democratic Party
* Democratic Farm Labor Party of Minnesota – Affiliated with Democratic Party
* Democratic Nonpartisan League of North Dakota – Affiliated with Democratic Party
* Democratic Patriotism Party
* Democratic Socialists Party
* D.C. Statehood Green Party of the District of Columbia – Affiliated with the Green Party
* Diamond Party Voters League
* Ecology Party of Florida
* Expansionist Party
* Faith & Patience Inc. NPGG of Florida
* Family Values Party of Florida
* Federalist Party
* Fifth Republic Party
* Free Party
* Free Parliamentary Party
* Freedom Party
* Freedom Restoration Party of New York – affiliated with the Independent American Party
* Freedom Socialist Party of Washington
* Fusion Party
* Global Justice Party
* Grassroots Party
* Greens / Green Party
* Green Independent Party of Maine
* Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts – Affiliated with the Green Party
* Guns and Dope Party of California
* Hawaii Independence Party of Hawaii
* Humane Liberation Party of Sacramento, California
* Idealistic Party of People
* Independence Parties:,
* Independent American Parties
* Independent Citizens’ Movement Party of the Virgin Islands
* Independent Democrats of Florida
* Independent Party of Florida
* Industrial Workers of the World Party
* Integrity Party of New York, affiliated with American Reform Party.
* Jefferson Party
* Jeffersonian Party
* Knights Party,
* Labor Party
* League for the Revolutionary Party
* Legal Party
* Legal Marijuana Party of New Jersey
* Liberal Party
* Libertarian Party
* Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
* Liberty Union Party of Vermont
* Light Party
* Local Party
* Marijuana Legalization Parties:
o Legal Marijuana Party of New Jersey
o Make Marijuana Legal Party of Vermont
o U.S. Marijuana Party
* Moderate Party of Florida
* Moderate Party of Rhode Island
* Monster Raving Looney Party
* Mountain Party of West Virginia – Affiliated with the Green Party
* National Alliance
* National Socialist Movement
* National Socialist White People’s Party
* Nazi Parties:
o American National Socialist Workers Party,
o American Nazi Party,
o National Alliance,
o National Socialist Movement,
o Nationalist Workers Party,
* Neo Whig Party
* Netocratic Party
* New American Independent Party
* New Progressive Party of Wisconsin
* New Revolution Party of California
* National Nihilist Party
* Objectivist Party
* Open Party of California
* Open Progressive Party of Minnesota
* Pacific Green Party of Oregon – Affiliated with the Green Party
* Pacifist Party
* Partido Acción Civil – Civil Action Party of Peurto Rico
* Partido Frente Socialista – Socialist Front Party of Puerto Rico
* Partido Independentista Puertoriqueño – Puerto Rican Independence Party
* Partido Nacional de la Raza Unida – United People Party
* Partido Nuevo Progresista – New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico
* Partido Popular Democrático – Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico
* Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party
* Party 4 Peace,
* Peace and Freedom Party of California
* People for Direct Democracy Party
* People’s Party,
* Personal Choice Party of Utah
* Pirate Party,
* Planetary Engineering Party
* Populist Party – (Alternative Site)
* Possibility Party of Florida,
* Practical Party of Illinois
* Progressive Parties:
* Progressive Labor Party
* Progressive Libertarian Party of Florida
* Prohibition Party – Alternate sites
* Proportional Representation Party
* Radical Party
* Real Food Party of Florida,
* Rebuild Party of New York
* Reform Party
* Republican Party
* Resource Party of Minnesota,
* Revolutionary Communist Party,
* Right to Life Party of New York
* Save Our Society and Sovereignty Party
* Scorched Earth Party
* Social Democratic Party – Alternate Cite,
* Party for Socialism and Liberation
* Socialist Party USA
* Socialist Action
* Socialist Equality Party,
* Socialist Labor Party
* Socialist Workers Party
* Southern Parties
* Statesmanship Party
* Surfers Party
* Taxpayers Parties
* TEA Party
* Term Limits Party of Florida,
* Thermodynamics Law Party
* Third Party
* Timesizing.com Party of Massachusetts
* Truth and Action Party
* Twelve Visions Party of Florida
* Twelve Visions Party of California
* United Citizens Party of South Carolina
* Unity Party
* Utopia Manifesto Party
* USAbility Party
* Vermont Independence Day Party
* Veterans Party
* We Like Women Party of California
* We The People Party
* Whig Party
* Workers Party
* Workers Socialist Party
* Workers World Party
* Working Families Party
* World Socialist Party
* Party X
@9 Why should there be a limit? Do we need a limit on how many kinds of beer or cereal there are?
There should either be as many parties as able to field a candidate (all with the same easy path to ballot access) or no parties and all candidates still have the same easy path to ballot access
Trouble with democracy? The solution is more democracy!
more parties? what’s the limit?
There’s hardly a non-partisan election in the country – i.e., almost all school boards can easily be defined as conservative/Republican vs. liberal/Democrat when it comes to policy-making.
I’m going to have to agree with Richard as well. Sean Scallon is being a bit short sighted. Just because an elected body is *officially* non partisan, doesn’t mean it really is. All municipal elections in my state are non partisan, yet when it comes to the mid sized to major cities, like San Francisco, no one can argue with a straight face that they are really non partisan. He’s probably right though that the unicameral reform of Nebraska’s legislature is worth investigating.
I tend to agree with Richard. I think parties are inevitable, even if you ban using the name.
Boy… this guy sure doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to politics in Nebraska.
I live in Omaha… have all my life… and I can tell you that the unicameral is nothing but partisan. The republicans have monopolistic control over the state senate. All ‘nonpartisan elections’ are is taking away the labels in advertising… it doesn’t change anything.
Agreed as well.
I’m with Richard Winger.
We need a system that allows for more than two parties, much like most other modern democracies allow (or rather all modern democracies, while some modern industrial societies still use primitive political systems and haven’t modernized…yet).
The first sentence should be “couldn’t conduct state business without…”
Minnesota found that it couldn’t conduct state business with parties inside its legislature. So parties within the legislature formed. They were the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. After many decades, the voters said, “Look, we know you legislators have parties inside the legislature; isn’t time these parties came out in the open?” So the state constitution was amended, with popular approval, to bring back partisan elections.
Every nation in the world with a population greater than 10,000 has political parties. Hundreds of social scientists have studied political parties for over a century. No one who has studies political parties believes that democratic government is possible without parties. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile for some office-holders to be independents, and independent members of our legislative bodies are usually very helpful.