The Tea Party - Forerunner of a New American Political Architecture?

A No-Party Election Structure

With public approval of Congress at 17% it is unreasonable to think the current two-party system is serving us well. It has brought us very limited choice in candidates or philosophy and created inefficient and inept legislative houses. Worst of all, it has created leaders who have loyalty to their party that exceeds that to the country. Adams, Jefferson, and Washington were all strongly against the establishment of political parties. Very few citizens think that the parties operate for the general good of the citizens.

The country should give serious consideration to moving from the two party system to an architecture that is much more open to all citizens and that provides more choice. Forgetting for the moment the political agenda of the Tea Party we can use it as useful glimpse of how a no-party system might perform.

The Tea Party is not a political party in the conventional sense. It is a loose relationship of independent local organizations consisting of citizens from all walks of life. The local citizens support individual candidates that fall closest to their choice. This gives a very distributed architecture that has shown impressive power in the mid-terms for supporting new candidates in the primaries and opening the process to more citizens. It is taking a strong toll on the centralized power of the GOP.

How would it be if the entire American political system were organized on this basis, as opposed to the existing two party system? On the surface, not all that different. The all-controlling two parties would be replaced by many more advocacy groups. These organizations, many of whom would be national, could be more flexible in policies and indivdual candidates. They would replace the existing campaign headquarters of the two parties. Each center would normally present a slate of candidates and policies to support during the campaign. The multiple advocation oraganizations would offer a much broader political spectrum than the current two party system. The balloting would be the same as now but only vote on the position and candidates, not an organizational affiliation.

In the mid-terms the Tea Party used the GOP primaries to sort out the candidates which were to run in the finals. This would not be availabele in the no-party system. A new primary system would have to be designed, perhaps using state primary centers.

The advocate groups, of course, would have to be licensed and subject to qualifying rules.

Just a starting discussion, but worth exploring. It would be much closer to what our founders had in mind.