
Sergey Brin Calls On Politicians To Abandon Political Parties - jaredtking
http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/06/google-co-founder-brin-calls-on-politicians-to-abandon-political-parties/
======
bryanlarsen
Many people agree that there are many problems with first past the post
voting. IMO, that's an artefact of voting districts. With modern technology,
it's possible to make our representative democracy truly representative.

During an election, you give your proxy to anybody who is willing to be a
representative. Each representative votes in Congress with a vote weighted by
the number of proxies they received. The top 500 or so representatives get to
sit in Congress. Those who didn't reach the threshold must pass their proxy on
to another.

Nobody is no longer "represented" by somebody they didn't vote for. You can be
represented by somebody who much more closely matches your interest.
"Districts" will still be represented because many people will choose a local
candidate, but everybody is free to choose someone who will represent them
better if no local candidate does.

This won't eliminate political parties, but it will significantly weaken them
as strong representatives will no longer be as dependent on the party
machinery.

~~~
erichocean
I'm curious: is there any otherwise "fair" voting system that is _less_
representative than "first past the post voting"?

It's obvious it was chose for the US because they had ZERO knowledge of game
theory and it was the best they could come up with at the time.

But given that we now know how to do representative democracy that's actually,
you know, _representative_ , it does make me wonder if the US is actually
provably using the worst "fair" voting system we actually know how to build.

And if it is, you'd think it'd be possible to get the states to pass a
constitutional amendment changing it (which would then go to congress – yes,
it's in reverse, but the two-party system will NEVER vote themselves out
without an overwhelming public display of opinion on the matter, IMO).

~~~
pathjumper
The problem with the game theory's ideas on voting is that people do not
always behave as game theory predicts.

Free will is great way to avoid stagnation if we were to but use it.

------
phillmv
I feel like I can't contribute much further than Yglesias did,

>Political partisanship is kind of like representative democracy itself—a
terrible mess, but clearly superior to the alternatives. After all, we don't
need to guess at what representative democracy without political parties would
look like. Just examine almost any American city council—be it New York, DC,
Chicago, San Francisco, whatever—and you'll see a legislative body that's so
overwhelmingly Democratic that partisan politics don't drive outcomes. The
result of this isn't a utopia of good government and sound policy, it's an
orgy of hyper-localism.

>Political parties are organized, for better and for worse, around clashing
visions of what's better for America. The quest for partisan advantage is,
among other things, a quest for the opportunity to build a better society.
Absent parties you get a situation where instead of a clash of visions of what
would be best for the city as a whole, council members give undue preference
to strong local interests. In city government, that means NIMBYism. In
Congress it would mean endless gobs of the much-derided pork barrelling.

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/06/sergei_brin_h...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/06/sergei_brin_hates_political_parties_but_he_d_like_the_alternative_even_less.html)

~~~
saraid216
> The result of this isn't a utopia of good government and sound policy, it's
> an orgy of hyper-localism.

Any chance someone could make this statement more concrete? It's terribly
important to his argument, but it's taken as an article of faith.

~~~
phillmv
Because you're only beholden to the people who live in your ward, you only
really have the interests of those specific 10-50 thousand people (less in
smaller cities, more in larger ones) in mind.

This, it turns out, really harms the capacity for governments to make
decisions that make everyone better off on average but might make any given
small region of people unhappy (say, by building a powerplant or a garbage
dump).

Of course, there are benefits to this kind of representation, and some kind of
mix is always desirable - but the gist of it is people are more willing to
make regionally-disinterested decisions if their interests are aligned across
ideological rather than geographical lines.

~~~
EliRivers
"This, it turns out, really harms the capacity for governments to make
decisions that make everyone better off on average but might make any given
small region of people unhappy (say, by building a powerplant or a garbage
dump)."

Can you explain why? I don't understand this. I would have thought that, for
example, given a country of 50 districts, and the decision is being made
"shall we build this dump in district 1", you'll get 49 voting yes and the
representative of district 1 voting no.

~~~
textminer
But District 1's representative is chair of a committee you need to sweet talk
in two months, and is maybe a tie-breaking vote for that other thing you want.

------
specialist
#1 - We have two political parties in the USA because of our winner takes all
form of elections. No matter how big the pie, two sides will each attempt to
form the smallest winning coalition.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law>

#2 - Anything that weakens the political parties strengthens the monied
interests. The American experiment has always been wealth vs democracy. Bad as
our parties are, plutocracy is worse.

This may change with the rise of issues-based political organizations.

#3 - In the USA, we vote on everything, and we are not homogeneous. My local
Republicans would be considered Democrats else where.

#4 - Don't be distracted by the party politics. Reforms which would most
improve our democracy, in order, are:

a) Fair redistricting, meaning maximal competitiveness, minimal incumbency
protection.

b) Universal voter registration, just like every other western democracy.

c) Public financing of campaigns.

d) Restore the fairness doctrine.

That's pretty much it. A good start. Everything else is just rearranging the
deck chairs on the Titanic.

(I've got a separate list for election integrity reform.)

------
senthil_rajasek
There is an error in the paraphrasing, Sergey Brin is not calling for all
politicians to abandon their political parties. He is suggesting the "victors"
to withdraw from their party affiliation while they are governing. There is a
big difference.

Here is his original post,

<https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SergeyBrin/posts/B9VnJXd6Rir>

~~~
shawn-butler
I think you are correct. Many people seem to not be bothering what he wrote.
That being said, I don't really understand this post at all. He recognizes and
dislikes the game mechanics involved in political brinkmanship, and then
thinks somehow there is any competitive human endeavor that does not involve
one? Why not use mathematics to find a better mechanic more suitable to a
goal? For example, absolute or adaptive term limits.

Simply renouncing party affiliation leads to Bloomberg style manipulation of
the electorate's party affiliations. Some people (most) prefer that the
actions and abuses of one elected official will most likely reflect on the
entire party in the next cycle. Complicated.

------
brackin
I found the original Google+ post more striking. If anyone wants to access
that directly: <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SergeyBrin/posts/B9VnJXd6Rir>

This is a good move from Brin in my opinion, even though he can do little more
than speak about the matter. There's nothing more dangerous to a stable
democracy than a two party system. In Britain with more prominent parties
(Even though only two really get elected) I still feel like my politics aren't
being represented.

~~~
trhtrsh
If Brin really wanted to do more than speak, he could be Governor of CA in 10
years and President in 20.

------
Wilduck
I don't want politicians to denounce their political parties. Instead, I would
rather see an adoption of elements of proportional representation into our
political system.

For example, Party List PR[1] in the House of Representatives would provide an
avenue for third parties to actually get elected on the national level. This
may seem like an extreme example, in that it is highly unlikely to happen any
time soon, but it is not an extreme system of voting. The German Bundestag,
for example, combines a system of First Past the Post voting and Party List PR
to achieve proportional representation in their legislature[2].

Even less extreme would be ditching the Electoral college, and moving to a
Single Transferable Vote[3] for presidential elections. At least under these
systems you're not "Throwing your vote away" when voting third party.

There is evidence that proportional systems of representation increase voter
participation, and voter confidence. I would love to see prominent
technologists espousing these sorts of changes.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-
list_proportional_represe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-
list_proportional_representation)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag_(Germany)#Distributio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag_\(Germany\)#Distribution_of_seats_by_party_in_the_17th_Bundestag)

[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote>

~~~
mtgx
I would also like to see the "Approval Voting" system being implement. It
would make sure the politician that _most_ people agree with the _most_ , will
get elected. It would also make it a lot easier for a 3rd party candidate to
be elected president.

For example, if 45% would vote for Obama (Democrats), 45% would vote for
Romney (Republicans), and each of those 2 factions would also vote for Gary
Johnson in proportion of 30% each (out of total voters), then it would be Gary
Johnson who would win the election, because he would have the support of 60%
of the population, rather than 45% for Obama and 45% for Romney.

The reason this result would be more satisfactory for a larger portion of
voters, is because more people actually approved of this candidate from both
sides, instead of 45% approving Obama and absolutely _hating_ Romney as a
president, or 45% approving of Romney and absolutely _hating_ Obama.

The winner would be the candidate that is liked or approved by the largest
portion of the population, which leads to higher satisfaction for the voters
after the election.

<http://electology.org/approval-voting>

AV vs IRV (for those wanting to see the IRV system being applied):

<http://electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv/>

~~~
AnthonyMouse
As an added bonus, because it creates more [viable] parties, it makes attack
adds less effective: If you have one opponent, causing that opponent to lose a
vote is just as good as gaining a vote for yourself. If you have two or more
viable opponents then attacks against any individual opponent helps the
remainder as much as you. And in that case, better to be positive about
yourself than negative about the opposition.

------
mmanfrin
Parties are not the cause, they are the result. A first-past-the-post system
like ours will _always_ tend towards a two party system.

~~~
Wilduck
Exactly. This is known as Duverger's Law.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law>

------
jhuckestein
In Germany we have a multi-party system and it works a little better than in
the US but it's not a silver bullet either. After each election, the elected
representatives vote for our chancellor (similar to the American president).
Because we have so many parties and the two largest parties usually get only
20% to 40% of the vote, they need to form alliances with the smaller parties
in order to gain a governing majority.

Sometimes our conservative party will team up with the liberals, sometimes our
social democratic party will have to team up with a right-leaning party and
sometimes the two big parties will even form an alliance.

This works fairly well, especially because each state government has a
different set of governing parties so there's not as much bitterness and more
people get to work together. That said, within each office, parties still
consider themselves to be either governing or the opposition and fall into
opposition mode for a few years, just like they do in the US.

------
hooande
I think that a Liberal vs Conservative two party system is inevitable in any
large group. This assumes that most humans fall into broad liberal (counts on
government, believes in helping the poor, open to new ideas) or conservative
(dislikes taxes, believes in personal responsibility, likes free markets and
the past) modes of thinking.

Sooner or later, the smaller groups on one side are going to realize that they
can push elements of their agenda further if they all vote together. They
might not get all of the things that they wanted, but they'll gain more
leverage over the people who have a drastically different world view. Once
this has happened, all of the people of the other mode of thinking will
realize that they now have to band together in order to compete. And wallah,
parties are formed.

The problem this presents to american voters is that a vote for a third party
is effectively a vote for the other side of the ideological divide. Every vote
cast for Garry Johnson is directly aiding the cause of Barack Obama. I bet Al
Gore hates Ralph Nader to this day. The idea of "what will happen if the other
side wins?" is a very real motivating factor in the voting booth.

I'm not defending the two party system. I'm saying that like free markets,
it's an emergent property of human behavior. Working together with common
cause is the best way to get something done, even if it means associating
yourself with a group of people that you don't entirely agree with.

~~~
adaml_623
Many European parliaments seem to disprove your conjecture. The governing
group is made up of coalitions of smaller parties.

------
cletus
There are two important points to remember when it comes to political parties:

1\. Political parties are _brands_. Just like buying a widget from Apple is
done based on certain expectations based on the history of previous widgets, a
political party instantly tells most voters what that person is for or
against.

This is _incredibly convenient_ to the vast majority of voters; and

2\. The current state of politics in the US I think reflect's Hotelling's Law
[1]. The parties have converged on the middle so they each get roughly half
the vote. With such close elections and narrow balances of power in the House
and Senate things are going to stay ugly.

Look no further than the current distribution of seats in the Australian House
of Representatives [2] where the Gillard government clings to power with the
support of 3 independents and 1 Green (76-74), a change of a single seat could
change the government.

This has inevitably led to some bitter disputes [3] [4] that would be non-
issues or much smaller issues if the government had a large working majority.

The problem with the US is not the electoral college or that only swing states
matter (which largely misses the point). Popular vote deciding the president
would be a fundamental change to the system that would (IMHO) ultimately lead
to disaster when a close enough election repeated the turmoil of the 2000
Florida recount across the entire country.

The problem is that:

1\. Voting _isn't_ mandatory and the population is apathetic;

2\. Voting is too hard being on a weekday and involving long waiting times. I
would also argue that the long waiting times are symptomatic of (1). Partisan
election officials have a vested interest in deterring or encouraging the vote
in certain areas;

3\. The FPTP (first past the post) system reinforces the two-party system
whereas preferential voting systems allow "protest votes" without them being
wasted or, worse, an effective vote for the other side;

4\. Here's the big one: people are too predictable in how they vote. Of those
that vote, 40% vote Democrat, 40% vote Republican and 20% decide the election.
The Biggest electoral landslides in history (Reagan in 84 and Nixon in 72)
have both garnered less than 60% of the popular vote.

This problem is so bad that in the redistricting process [5] there are maps
produced of political persuasions that are used by the incumbent state
government to redraw boundaries to maximize "their" Congressional delegation.
This process is incredibly accurate because people are so predictable.

IMHO the choices in this election are pretty terrible. Romney, with his 47%
and his "binders full of women" is a joke. Obama is the most IP-friendly and
consumer and tech hostile president in history, from championing in secret a
treaty (the original ACTA) that would've raised file-sharing to the level of
terrorism and turned the FBI into the RIAA and MPAA's enforcement arm to
filling the DoJ and judiciary with RIAA lawyers to his stance on software
patents.

My advice? Given bad choices, which seem to abound, vote against the
incumbent. The one thing politicians seem to fear is losing office with all
the power and perks that come with it.

If this means you vote for a party you otherwise wouldn't, consider this: it's
also important that your party doesn't take your vote for granted.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotellings_law>

[2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Austr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_\(Australia\)#Current_distribution_of_seats)

[3]:
[http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/2012/10/09/australian-...](http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/2012/10/09/australian-
speaker-weakens-gov-grip-quitting/3P1RG5mO2uvmPN77oHgMCP/story.html)

[4]: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-23/australian-
lawmaker...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-23/australian-lawmaker-
thomson-s-home-raided-amid-corruption-probe.html)

[5]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting>

~~~
ryanwaggoner
_Voting isn't mandatory and the population is apathetic;_

Optional voting is a feature, not a bug. It ensures that the people who care
most wield the most influence. If they collectively take the rest of the
(apathetic) population astray, more people will start to care and swing the
country in a different direction. There's a term for this kind of self-
correcting system, but it escapes me right now.

Regardless, changing to mandatory voting would do absolutely nothing to solve
voter apathy. It could theoretically have the opposite effect, as now the
people who care deeply have less influence because their votes are watered
down by people who only vote to avoid a fine.

~~~
juddlyon
I like that it's optional, but it would be cool if the US made election day a
holiday as a way to increase turnout a bit. Everybody is distracted anyhow.

~~~
jholman
If you make it a holiday, people will go on holiday.

Instead, require employers to give their employees 3 hours off during the day,
or something like that.

O Canada!
[http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=faq...](http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=faq&document=faqvoting&lang=e#a6)

------
hnriot
How naive of Brin to suggest this, and some might easily suggest that the best
thing politicians can do is spednd their time sticking it to each other, that
way they meddle less and avoid doing any real damage. Seriously though this
post really shows how little Brin understands about how political systems
work.

~~~
olefoo
This. Competence in one field does not imply understanding in another.

Given Sergey's proclivities and interests, I'd say it behooves him to fund a
"non-partisan" thinktank to look at the data and produce data-driven policy
suggestions that are intended to influence all parties to government.

Not that I would suggest that he become too personally invested in what
happens after the suggestions make into the legislature; that way lies pain.

------
javajosh
People are not reading enough into Brin's suggestion. You can't just ditch
parties and expect to win an election. But parties are pretty bad. The
solution is to really democratize American politics. I think we need a
completely new system, where, oh, five candidates are chosen by a random
lottery, and then after a few months of preparation (which would make great
reality TV) a general election.

This is the kind of participatory government that our modern information
infrastructure can enable. And tell me that the American people wouldn't love
this!

The cool thing is that we can graft this onto the current system by asking
people to agree to a pact where they agree to write in the selected candidate.
This would have to be conditional, of course, on getting enough people to
agree to the pact. 10 million or so would be a significant number.

Of course there's no reason to start off with national politics with this. I
think it would be fine to start with local races and demonstrate feasibility.
But of course, I _want_ it to choose the next President. :)

------
Velveteen_Mask
As stated here, 2 party system is corrupt and self-destructive. When you
listen to Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, you hear rational people talking about
real problems and real solutions. __________________* I urge EVERYONE who is
not in a battleground state to vote 3rd party, so that the news covers them
more, and more voters hear their positions. This is the soft way to break the
duopoly. The only other way I know involves bloodshed. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
__ _

------
jusben1369
So are we complaining about the electoral college or the two party system? Way
to smudge together two very important, but separate issues.

I would argue that the problem in the US is that the two party system is too
weak, not too strong, especially at the Federal level. More party discipline
would mean majorities would drive through meaningful legislation that would
create real change and make voters understand that the one thing they won't
get (like today) is inertia due to partisan politics. Today there's very
little party discipline in Congress so all legislation becomes multi animal
sausage and no one ends up liking the watered down and confused taste.

------
vidarh
Is he really that naive?

It is not in the interest of any politician that wants their agenda to be
successful to abandon political parties. Political parties were created to
serve a purpose: People who believe their view of the world is right band
together to increase their chance of changing things to fit their world view.

Even if they were to all abandon political parties tomorrow, they would still
have their allegiances and their respective world views and would seek to
forge alliances to push their agendas. The end result would be the same.

He should look instead to a voting system that so dramatically favour a
strongly polarized two party system.

------
debacle
"Old Man Yells At Cloud" would have been an equally compelling headline.

------
kwamenum86
"It is ironic since whenever I have met with our elected officials they are
invariably thoughtful, well-meaning people."

Maybe they come off as thoughtful and well-meaning because many of them are
sociopaths. Indeed, politicians are much more likely to be sociopaths and
psycopaths; they're great manipulators.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy>

------
Nursie
I'd rather not have politicians making the decisions at all. Why do I need to
pick someone who poorly represents my views and will probably vote against my
interests, when I could easily vote on actual issues.

We'd still need executives, but legislature should be reduced to putting bills
before the people.

~~~
qxcv
> Why do I need to pick someone who poorly represents my views and will
> probably vote against my interests, when I could easily vote on actual
> issues.

That's a great idea! In fact, I can see a business opportunity for an
enterprising individual (or group of individuals, as it may be) under such a
system: one could assemble a team of advisors who would analyse and debate
legislation in order to decide on an optimal outcome for the country. Their
advice could then be given to paying subscribers, who would vote in accordance
with it, and thus pass legislation which benefits the country. If the
subscribers disagree with the advisors, then they could subscribe to a
different team of advisors after a period of time, and use that team's advice.
This way, the subscribers get the benefit of deciding the country's future
_without_ the hassle of having to deeply analyse issues each-and-every time a
new piece of law comes up. This is especially beneficial if they are not
knowledgeable in or care little about a given field, but do not wish to leave
legislation of that field to a small, entirely self-selected group of
individuals (democracy _is_ about representing the interests of the whole,
after all).

Yes, I've got the basics all sorted out. To paraphrase Phil Karlton, the hard
part is thinking up a name for the damn thing! I was thinking something edgy
and retro like "The Parliament" or perhaps "Congress", but I'm open to other
suggestions as well.

~~~
Nursie
Err, no, that's not what I was thinking of at all. You're still wedded to the
idea of political parties and representatives.

Maybe some people would do what you suggest. Others would not.

If you fundamentally disagree with direct democracy then that's fine, but
painting at as no different from representative democracy, in which a person
has no direct say, is just wrong.

------
pan69
This is just my take on it; I don't think there anything wrong with the notion
of a political party. It's just a bucket under which like-minded people can
group together.

My problem with politics is that politicians seem to be more focused on
politics rather than governance. It's the back-stabbing, lying and foul
mouthing that I start to detest more and more as I get older.

A lot of young politicians start their career out with a lot ideals and will
to chance the world they live in. But then they grow up a little and suddenly
they have a young family to look after. Their ideals chance and what comes out
of their mouths slowly starts to turn into "blah" simply saying what people
want to hear. I.e. politics. Their once good intentions slowly turn into self
interest.

I think the first thing that any sane democracy should do is to take away the
self interest among politicians. I would say that if someone decides to go
into politics that this person can have no ties and interests to the
commercial world what so ever. Not sure how this would exactly work in the
real world but I think it could do some good to our political system.

------
anon808
I call on all developers to abandon employment at mega companies and work
independently.

~~~
Apocryphon
The FOSS movement is far stronger in software than third parties are in
American politics.

~~~
anon808
yup, good point but i'm not sure sergey would be encouraging google employees
to quit google and take up an open source project as readily as he's calling
politicians to do so. my comment is a little trolly, just find it peculiar
that a person who heads up a massive organization encourages other folks not
to be part of other massive organizations. I agree with him, partisan politics
is bad, just as bad as corporate droning (which i'm not sure he would agree
with).

------
bitcartel
In the UK, only 1% of the electorate are members of a political party. Or put
another way: "between them the three main parties now have fewer members than
the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds"

<http://www.economist.com/node/21559901>

What happens as party membership continues to decline? At what point does it
become farcical?

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/british-
democracy-d...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/british-democracy-
decline-report)

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/06/politics...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/06/politics-
democracy-decline-audit-data)

~~~
citricsquid
I care enough about politics to know who I'm voting for but not enough to go
out and campaign for the party I'm voting for, are people that are members of
a party the people that put up signs in their windows and the like? What _is_
a "member" of the conservative party? Does someone just sign some paper or do
they pay money to support the party, or commit to helping campaign?

~~~
bitcartel
Joining the party as a member costs 25 pounds a year.

<http://www.conservatives.com/Get_involved/Join.aspx>

------
ebbv
Hey while we're making ridiculous claims that will never happen let me call on
all billionaires like Sergey Brin to give away 99.999% of their money to
charity immediately, not wait until they're 60 and realizing their only legacy
is being an asshole.

------
no_more_death
The problem is the idea that a single elected official can somehow represent
the entire United States. Can one person understand and represent 300 million
people?

Impossible.

At least, impossible on a deep level. Such understanding is possible only in a
very general level, for issues that are very broad.

Therefore, government should be as small, localized, and focused as possible.
As much power as possible should be invested at the local level.

A lot of Europeans don't get this. European countries are already small and
homogeneous (apologies for a huge generalization). They already have a fairly
local government. The USA needs to work differently because it's the third
most populous country in the world and because it's so enormously diverse.
Government should be as close to the people as possible. Then if you don't
like your municipality or state, you can move a few miles away to get a
different municipal / state government.

I'm much more concerned about electing people whom I've met personally and had
the chance to interact with at a town hall. Grass roots movements are much
more effective at understanding people in a deep way. From a conservative
perspective (my perspective), the Tea Party is a movement that has had great
success enforcing accountability and toppling incumbents. There are similar
movements in other political camps as well.

Here's the point: localized government increases freedom and choice. It puts
local government in a position where it has to compete with other governments
(municipal or state). That kind of competition can potentially squeeze out
corruption and increase accountability.

~~~
saraid216
> The problem is the idea that a single elected official can somehow represent
> the entire United States. Can one person understand and represent 300
> million people?

He's not actually supposed to.

The President has two essential jobs: (1) administrating and executing the
laws he signs from Congress and (2) being the country's spokesperson to the
rest of the world. To actually do these jobs, he presides over the vast
bureaucracy that is the federal government. Sometimes his speech involves
bombs; other times, it's more diplomatic.

The idea that such a person should be representative of yourself is silly. I
don't want to talk to Iran; that's why I elect a President to do it for me.

Read Article 2 of the Constitution. It says _nothing_ about representation, or
anything like it.

~~~
shawn-butler
I would add 3) commander of the armed forces.

Also because of the laws passed under 1) in perhaps the most important duty,
the President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit
a budget to Congress each year. IMHO, this is where the line gets fuzzy as
taxation and representation are inexorably linked.

------
brownbat
For what it's worth, in the US (as opposed to, say, the UK), party politicians
aren't tightly bound to their party's policies. This partly explains why some
Republicans on the West coast could be considered "too liberal" to win in the
Midwest, while some Southern Democrats from the last decade formerly endorsed
segregation.

And the parties encompass so many issues, it's nearly impossible for anyone to
be a partisan down the line while remaining consistent. Isolationists and
libertarians will clash in the Republican's tent, while union supporters and
environmentalists might clash in the Democrat's tent.

Parties aren't awesome, they often get distracted by short term tactical goals
that hurt the country rather than pursuing long term strategies to refine
public policy. But I think that's a vision and leadership problem, not a
problem with parties themselves. The wide range of views within each party
should at least provide some reassurance that the parties aren't always just
giant soul-crushing machines.

Just sometimes.

------
kdsudac
I'm sympathetic to Sergey's views but I'd think he of all people would
understand the utility of political parties as huge marketing machines. The
DNC and GOP have a) eyeballs/audience which leads to b) donors/money.

Although imperfect, there is some substance in this analogy Political
Parties:Elections::Search Engines:Online Marketing

------
lifeisstillgood
Can I suggest creating a new party? There must be enough Republicans sick of
being associated with the Tea party, and enough Democrats who would quite like
to be able to pass a law, any law, that a centrist counter balance would be
quite feasible, and play the part of kingmaker.

~~~
TallGuyShort
You mean - a _third_ party? :) Several people have had this idea - one of them
actually appears to be getting a respectable portion of the vote this time.
Generally speaking, it hasn't caught on.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
It will catch on better than no party !

~~~
TallGuyShort
You do realize there are already other alternative parties, right?

------
jfoster
In the absence of a political party imposing partisanship onto politicians, is
it possible that a new source of control over politicians might emerge?

Independents (whether politicians, startups, or any organization that isn't
big) are always cash strapped and in pursuit of a voice.

------
mdlm
Wow.

This is exactly what our YC application is about: "Thete builds tools for
people who want to create new countries...We ask whether politicians are a
necessary part of a political system."

:-) :)

------
jcslzr
Political Parties should be illegal. They just end up as gangs of charismatic
people.

------
robomartin
I'm trying really hard not to get into political discussion. I really am.

Here's a cold-hard fact: We can argue Republican or Democrat; Romney or Obama;
More taxes or not; Unions or no unions; Electoral college or popular vote, and
we can argue these and many other topics until we all vomit in disgust. And
the truth will still be that our system of government has run its course and
is in dire need of sensible and effective reform.

Can't change it? Well, women and blacks didn't use to be able to vote either.
Of course we can change it! It just isn't easy. And it shouldn't be.

We can continue to bicker about all of the above and more while our country
continues accelerating down the slippery slope that marks the decline of what
was once a great society.

It is politicians for politicians and by politicians. It is special interests
and unions. It is idiot voters who rubber-stamp parties without any thought
given to the consequences. It is about the incursion of hyper-religious sects
into government. It also is about the enslaving of the masses through never-
ending, ridiculous and abominable social programs that have managed to keep
entire generations of people in poverty and ignorance while eroding any
semblance of self-determination and the drive to succeed and advance.

That's where we are. That's the truth. Believe what you want. The fact remains
that you are unlucky enough to be living through a slow-motion train wreck and
it is US who are allowing it to happen. And, while I don't advocate, condone
or propose violence of any kind I remain surprised that people have not taken
to the streets to take their country back from a political class that deserves
a swift kick in the ass, at the very least. Morons. All of us.

As far as I am concerned, there's only ONE criteria that should guide your
decision of who to vote for over the next ten to twenty years: Economic
Recovery.

Virtually nothing else matters. Social issues are great when you are
prosperous. And they are extremely important. That said, what do you think
happens to social issues in places like Greece when people are rioting in the
streets, burning-down buildings and destroying infrastructure?

The luxury of a number of social programs can only come out of economic
prosperity. You can't buy your kid an Xbox if you are not making any money.
Well, we can't throw money around as a country when our economy is on life
support. We can't grow and we can't advance.

Economic prosperity has to be the single unifying criteria that drives us as a
country for at least the next decade, if not a lot more. We must pull out of
the nose-dive we are in. We have to. Or it will get really ugly here very
quickly.

As cool and fun as Obama is, he simply wasn't and isn't qualified for this
job. Back in 2008 not one of you HN entrepreneurs would have hired him to run
any kind of a startup. He wouldn't have been hired to even run a cookie baking
operation. He simply did not have the skill set and life experience. Why is it
that we ignore the facts and substitute our own imaginary reality with these
people? Are they so good that they truly CAN sell ice to Eskimos?

He wasn't qualified then and isn't qualified now. Would you have hired him to
run your startup in 2008 and given him all of your life savings and all of
your parent's, uncle's and friend's life savings? Unless you are in love with
the idea of Obama, as opposed to seeing the reality of Obama, the only
possible answer to that question is: No.

We desperately need someone at the helm that can focus on Economic Development
100% and --this is important-- comes to the office with the skill set and life
experience to navigate those waters. You don't learn to sail in a storm. You
must be an experienced sailor if you are going to have any chance whatsoever
to survive a storm.

I wonder, how would a VC feel if the CEO of a company they are backing plays
over 100 games of golf while the company continues to loose more and more
money for four years? And, what would they do to that CEO if he (or she)
refused to balance the budget and insisted in burning cash (and borrow more
cash) while playing golf, taking vacations, singing and dancing? This is
serious business folks. This ain't some bullshit Hollywood movie.

In my opinion, this country desperately needs the guidance, outlook and vision
of a seasoned business person. That's why today, my family and I voted for
Mitt Romney. And, while I fear that my vote will not count because I live in
California, I had to vote for the idea of a better potential future for both
myself and my kids. One never knows.

If you have not voted yet I urge you to consider the idea that nothing will
improve your life more than our country being guided into a path of steady and
significant economic prosperity. Today, I think, nothing else matters.

~~~
subsection1h

        Social issues are great when you are prosperous.
        [...] That's why today, my family and I voted
        for Mitt Romney.
    

Which of these family members of yours are gay and decided to postpone
equality until prosperity arrives?

    
    
        Would you have hired him to run your startup in 2008
    

I wouldn't hire someone to run my startup who thinks it's economically wise to
increase military spending by $2 trillion.

~~~
akiselev
Which of your gay family members would prefer equality over employment and a
growing standard of living?

This is obviously a false dichotomy but to say that you are postponing
equality until prosperity is also. In the Bay Area (and probably in much of
the religious south), Congressional and Presidential voting seems to focus on
one issue group (gun control, abortion, gay marriage), everything else be
damned.

~~~
robomartin
And what I am saying is that gun control, abortion, gay marriage, immigration,
healthcare, drug legalization and a whole array of other issues today are
secondary --have to be secondary-- to being 200% focused on regaining economic
prosperity.

We are on a solid path to $20 trillion dollars in national debt in four years.
Look at Greece. That's where we are going. Unless things change. All of the
above issues start to move under a different lens when you suddenly find
yourself on the road to insolvent third-world-nation status.

I have lived in a country where distraught groups took to the streets,
destroyed businesses and property, took over airports and blocked roads with
big piles of burning tires. Can't happen here? I hope. We are not that
special. People --mobs-- can become really irrational when economic
opportunity isn't available.

That's why I said that the number one priority is to focus all of our efforts
--every one of us-- on regaining our economic standing. This effort had to
start four years ago, not now. We wasted four years and made the job
exponentially harder.

I really hope that Obama focuses on what's important and doesn't waste our
time.

On another post someone said that the country isn't going to be destroyed by
another four years. Of course not, if what that means is that we are not going
to have our cities look like favelas in Brazil. What will happen --and what,
to a certain extent has already happened-- is that our country is being
destroyed from the inside and outside in terms of economic and industrial
capability.

I don't know where the tipping point is. But this isn't a game you can keep
playing forever. I've done the math, and it's ugly. Just fire-up your favorite
spreadsheet and try to figure out what you have to do to pay off the national
debt in, say, 25 years. It is a sobering exercise because you realize how
futile (and dumb) ideas like "tax the rich" really are. The couple of models
I've played with indicate that if, and only if, we get dead-serious about
cutting our spending to the bone and having a balanced budget we can pay off
the debt in about 50 years with some moderate restructuring of income taxes
that will affect everyone, not just the "rich".

Think about that for a moment: Fifty years. Fifty. That means living in near
economic stagnation for a very long time while you pay off your debts and
achieve balance. Even if the goal was to cut the national debt in half, it'd
still take 25 to 30 years. In other words, under nearly all scenarios you, I
and the next generation will be saddled with this problem.

I care about social issues. Of course I do. I also care about having a good
environment within which to address them. That's why I say that nothing,
absolutely nothing today has a higher priority than getting us back to a
strong economic standing. If we don't focus on that we are fucked. We are on a
slippery slope. And we are accelerating down that slope. Stopping becomes
exponentially harder as we focus on solving the wrong problems.

This is basic in business: You have to have a solid balance sheet before you
can engage in R&D and grow. If your business is constantly bleeding money you,
all of a sudden, find yourself in a situation where you just can't innovate,
compete and grow. A solid balance sheet allows you to do nice things for your
employees and your community. You can engage in philanthropy and buy everyone
pizza on Fridays. If you are up to your eyeballs in debt and bleeding money
you are not going to be donating time and money to your local community and
your employees better pack their own lunch. Basic.

------
grandalf
I question the judgment/intellect of anyone who affiliates with one of the
major two parties in the US.

I don't think parties themselves are necessarily a problem, but the US system
has converged on a two-party equilibrium that is destructive to the democratic
process.

------
pathjumper
Funny, I was just talking about this...

Political parties are a bad idea. George Washington himself went to great
pains to explain why in his farewell address.

The gist of it is, political parties divide us, and the goals and motives of
the party start to take precedence over the goals and motives of the people
the party is supposed to represent. To bring this home, if you think the
choice between two political candidates amounts to a choice between the lesser
of two evils, then the parties have failed us completely and ought to be
ousted. _Both of them._

I highly recommend every American read it. The prose is beautiful. [Here's the
full text.](<http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp>)

A couple of excerpts concerning the warning against political parties:

>One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular
districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You
cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings
which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each
other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

Political parties are deceptive and divisive...

>They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary
force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a
party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community;
and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the
public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects
of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested
by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

Parties can get co-opted by those with the time and means to do so. For
example, the 0.01%. The Koch brothers, etc. And government becomes a fight
between the parties instead of an operating government. Sound familiar?

>However combinations or associations of the above description may now and
then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things,
to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men
will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves
the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have
lifted them to unjust dominion.

People who control the parties may become ladder kickers. Removing the things
that helped them rise to power, so that they cannot be easily usurped once
ensconced. Like the Romney family. Mitt's father was a beneficiary of the
social programs Romney claims to want to terminate. The very definition of a
ladder kicker.

>The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit
of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries
has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.

Democrat vs. Republican.

>The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to
seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or
later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than
his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation,
on the ruins of public liberty.

Yeah, he saw
[this]([http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2nzBwb5Cea4/T9KJYicYRFI/AAAAAAAARt...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2nzBwb5Cea4/T9KJYicYRFI/AAAAAAAARtU/ncNwyxEpAS0/s1600/march_of_tyranny.jpg))
coming too. Parties take precedence over the people themselves, and when
coopted by special interests, such as our 0.01%, or big business, turn into a
nightmare.

>Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless
ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of
the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise
people to discourage and restrain it.

Keep an eye on political parties.

>It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public
administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and
false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments
occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and
corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through
the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country
are subjected to the policy and will of another.

[These are now called wedge
issues.]([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue#Wedge_politics_in_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue#Wedge_politics_in_the_United_States))
Ostensibly issues everyone cares about, but really a tool to separate us into
chunks and have us at each others' throats while those actually in power do as
they please while we are fighting amongst each other over issues that ought
not be the government's business.

