party lines

i read in another thread a comment upon which i'd like to solicit further thoughts, but felt it would be most appropriate to start a new thread (rather than pull that thread off topic).

the quote was:

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I don't actually know anyone who is politically intelligent and votes a straight ticket... Republican or Democrat. The people in my circle vote for candidates based on the issues at hand and the candidate's position.

i'm curious - how often to members of congress cross party lines in the interest of their local constituency? i know it happens, but my impression has always been that it is the gross exception (say, less than 10%) rather than a frequent thing.

so my questions are this:

A) what are your impressions? does anyone have any evidence or references on this?

B) what do you think of this? is it necessarily a good thing (eg more efficient vs. less in touch with the majority)?

C) to Ronn's original post: if crossing party lines is the gross exception, is it really politically intelligent to pick different candidates based on their views, since those views will be subsumed by the greater party whole?

cheers [img]smile.gif[/img]

edit - added last question (C) to bring it full circle

[ 11-25-2003, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: sultan ]

[khazadman]

Democrat Zell Miller of Georgia is a good example of someone crossing party lines to vote with another party. And there are a number of northeast Republicans who vote with the dems on things.

[john]

I don't belong to an organized party,I'm a democrat.

[wellard]

Originally posted by john: I don't belong to an organized party,I'm a democrat.

LOL

Its a good question Sultan asks, Down here the politicians always *98%* vote on party lines which is a shame. Sometimes you can have a really good local politician but he his gagged and nutered by the need to comply with party unity. Is it the same in the U.S.?

[Azred]

Party unity plays an extremely important role when campaigning for office. Unless your platform mostly matches the platform set by the National Committee, you won't probably get a confirmed nomination; the exception to this is if you are Famous. Once elected, all bets are off--most politicians vote either as they need to for their local base or as they have to in order to get something in the future (the usual "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" scenario).
In short, voting against the party line too much will likely cause you to lose the next election becuase you weren't "loyal" but voting the party line not enough means you will lose the next election because you "refuse to compromise". Catch-22, anyone? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

The real problem is this: even though a representative is sent to Congress to do for his constituency what they want, what the people want might not always be in their best interest.

The fundamental problem with the modern two-party system is that national policy is decided using a "top-down" approach rather than a "ground-level up" approach. These days Washington is all about maintaining the status quo, not "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".

[ 11-29-2003, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

apologies - i've been a terrible thread host, been away for almost a week.

i dont think it's a problem just with the two party system. as wellard points out, it's present here in australia, and while we have two major parties (labour and liberal), there are several smaller parties (democrats, one nation, greens, independents) represented at the state and federal levels.

i read an interesting article in a magazine called "policy" where a sociologist put forth a theory that basically said that the natural end point for democracy is a blown-up beauracracy laden with pork barrel policies. it's fairly well thought out and accurately describes the major democracies in the world with which i am familiar (thick and dull, but worth the read).

the point being that what azred describes may be an inherent weakness of democracy.

[img]graemlins/hidesbehindsofa.gif[/img] (and before anyone calls me an america basher or makes some silly statement about it's the best form of govt in the world, blah blah blah, i'm not advocating tearing down the system. rather, i'm suggesting an objective evaluation in the hopes that we can learn from it. [img]smile.gif[/img] )