What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics

I don't think partisan politics are the problem I think it's people particularly people who view others as horrible people if they disagree. If I disagree with a person about gun control I'm referred to as a baby killer. Instead of just a person who disagrees. And this is the sort of rhetoric that is present in our culture and it will lead to war.

 

For one thing, two party combined (without partisan designation) sponsorship of equal-time political ads and debates by corporate entities.

I also suggest equal yearly party campaign allowances taken from tax monies which may be carried over indefinitely.

 

I like this question!

How do you feel about primaries? That's one place tactical voting is often used.

IMO, we tend to get much more hyperpartisan candidates in the general election because of primaries. Then, in the general election, the mostly moderate electorate has a choice between two unappealing extremist candidates. Thus we have voter apathy and low turnout. Those candidates, once elected, see compromise as defeat, creating gridlock and ineffective governance.

I don't know how we get around primaries, but I think they contribute to the partisan dysfunction we are experiencing.

 

c

Addendum:

IMO, campaign are overfunded, and candidates with the most financial backing have an unfair advantage not necessarily related to qualifications or suitability for the position. . . . Budgeted campaigns by party committees SHOULD tend to focus more on their own candidates and less on opposition research (which should be left up to the media independent of political backing).

Additional funding (especially by PACs and corporate entities) MUST be prohibited to inhibit corruption.

 

We do have a situation where campaigns are a financial battle... and for the most part, offices are the spoils of that war.
This is fundamentally opposed to the idea that our votes are the key factors, because our votes are being manipulated by campaigns that are designed to create illusions rather than present facts- with money from various sources, which means they are "buying" all the votes they can gain from that deception.

Surely we can do better than that... but first, we need to come to terms with what is actually happening, and that can be hard. I think it was Mark Twain that said it is far easier to fool a man that it is to convince him that he has been fooled.

 

. . . . That you and I can agree on THIS is a step in the right direction.

What may be hard is getting Congress to legislate changes.

 

That's a given. They have a lock on the powers that run congress, which is a game beyond the voting process, and a lot of it is driven by money. They are not about to change the game, sacrifice their own edge and benefits because it would be better for the voters.

Something I have posted several times indicates how strong that is. The only power that can fire (remove from office now) a member of congress, IS congress. If they choose, they could throw out any who violated things like the oath of office, the ethics codes or their fiduciary duty- and I believe that every one of them does that in some degree every day.
In the last 150 years, they have seen fit to remove TWO such offenders. Apparently, that all they could find.

The foxes do run the hen-house.

 

Me

Meta, just a point to consider.
In a house with weak parents, noise is the normal- kids scream, parents scream... and nothing gets better.
In a house with strong parents, discipline is done softly but firmly and consistently, and things run smoothly. Nobody is screaming.
It is the actions we take, not the noise we make, that gets things done.
Those actions need to be consistent, the purpose and standards non-negotiable, and the consequences of ignoring them predictable.

Americans seem to prefer yelling and screaming more than improvement.

 

And who enforces them on you?
Everybody has their own set of rules and self enforces them. It is our nature to get along.
There is no policeman watching you every moment of every day. You abide by the law because you agree with the law.
Sometimes you won't agree and will speed in your car. But no one catches you.

So if you live a good life, laws don't affect you. Because your own rules work well enough.
And almost all of us do.

Park your laws where the sun doesn't shine because not everything in my country belongs to the country. A little bit of it is mine. And in my bit, I make the rules.
Land of the free.
Stupid rules get ignored. Deal with it.

 

A district judge I new for many years once told me that the best regulator was the self-regulator, and if everybody did that he would be out of work.
He said we have laws in part because many refuse to self-regulate, and prisons to keep those people from inflicting harm on others.
People do not all want to get along- a fair percentage want to take advantage, and consider that it is up to the law to limit how much they can take that way.
No nation can exist without laws and remain safe for all.

That is not to say that we don't have stupid laws or unequal enforcement- but that there must be laws that are set out to maintain an order and peaceful interaction among people.

 

and others refuse to stop regulating.
And their laws don't apply to them. Only to people they don't like.

Us being peaceful while others rob us.
Keep your laws mate. Anywhere you own you can rule. But right here, I rule and the people right here prefer my rules to yours As do I.

Do gooders, do badders, same ****. Jog on by.

 

People who consider rules restrictive are those who make rules necessary.

 

People who choose to restrict others are what makes violence necessary.
The goal is freedom, not obedience.

 

So, violence is NECESSARY to protest law enforcement???. . . . Do you really believe that doing away with restrictions would impede crime???

. . . . Are you posting this from PRISON???

 

And yet in the 20th century governments killed 262,000,000 of their own citizens.

 

Quite the opposite. I'm posting this from the land of the free.
Violence is necessary when people seek to rule over others.

Law of the jungle.

No laws no crime.
Pretty obvious.

Less laws less crime.
Less laws, lawyers and lawmakers, less tax. Which is theft.

When your laws are based upon anti-social behaviour, I may choose to ignore them.
Restrict yourself, or I will restrict you. You aren't the only person who can make and enforce laws.

I suggest to you that we'll get along better if we reign our ambitions in.

 

I'M DONE, TARZAN!!!