If the Electoral college were reformed (or even done away with ) would the American political landscape really experience a drastic change? As I see it, we'd still be electing Republicans and Democrats and the same sort of partisan nonsense would be going on. Currently the real power is not with the President or members of Congress or even those dastardly state legislatures that draw up Congressional boundaries. The power lies within the two political parties themselves. If a member of Congress wants his pet bills to get voted on, he must show that he is a "team player". Too many defections from party votes will relegate the member to the worst committees and doom his/her chances of getting any of his/her bills voted on, let alone passed. The same is true of the President: if he/she defects too much from the party line, then he/she can expect an unfriendly Congress.

If we really want to reform the American political system, why not do something that might actually have an impact, like getting rid of the two party system? I recall seeing visualizations of the 2000 elections which suggested that most states are not purely red or purely blue, but are instead purple. Why not add more opinions into the mix? Instead of asking whether everyone's favorite color is red or blue, why not add some more colors to the mix?

So which is it? More political parties or no political parties?

I'm not convinced that more parties would get us better politicians. You''ll hear all sorts of first amendment wailing and gnashing of teeth if you propose to eliminate the parties. We need to figure out how to get the politicians that we have to perform better. Term limits perhaps?

As for the electoral college. I'm surprised that it hasn't been eliminated already. Are there any truly compelling reasons to choose this system if we were starting from scratch today?

Nightswimmer,

I don't think foole was advocating more parties. I think he was advocating what I have done in an earlier post and rid ourselves of all political parties and allow those who are eligible to run for President to do so.

The Electoral college is not related to the 2 party system. The 2 party system exists largely because of the balance of power that creates. The Authors of the US Constitution envisioned NO parties. They believed that Congress would create spontaneous alliances on a issue-by-issue basis. Yet within 2 election cycles, the representatives themselves self-organized into essentially 2 parties.

A 2 party system has the advantage that if one party gets a majority, it has the power to ram through its agenda when it feels it necessary to do so. It also provides a strong counterbalance to what is an execptionally powerful executive. No other long term democracy has as powerful an executive. All others are parliamentary systems where if the Executive alienates too many of his own party, his administration falls no matter what the term.

Consider what happens to the balance of power if you don't have a 2 party system:

1. POTUS gets elected from the membership of one of the larger parties.
2. POTUS now has essentially the same free reign he would have if his party controlled both House and Senate since it would be that much harder for the opposition to gain the 2/3rds needed for veto override.
3. BUT POTUS' party would be exempt from criticisms leveled at POTUS, because they could always plead obstructionism by the other parties.

Essentially more parties means a more fractious Congress.

A more fractious Congress means a less powerful Congress.

A less powerful Congress means a more powerful POTUS

And these last 8 years have shown us where that leads.

This is an excellent point. I also believe that the extent of the power of the executive was heavily debated by the Founders. While I know that our strongly Federalist system was solidified from SCOTUS precedent after the Constitution was signed, do you know to what extent the power of the executive branch was established since 1787 (I think that's the signing date)? I suspect that one could use Lincoln's suspension of Habaeus Corpus as an example b/c though it was not prohibited by the Constitution, he demonstrated that a President could get away with it. Anyway, just curious.

I have long adored the idea of abolishing parties. I should also mention that I am a strong proponent of travel by flying unicorns.

The power of the Executive and the 2 party system almost go hand in hand. Jefferson and Hamilton both were officers in Washington's administrations. But over time their views of how the US government should function split - actually Jefferson migrated away from the Washington/Hamilton/Adams viewpoint. Namely Hamilton and many of the elite leaders really wanted the USA to be a 'reformed United Kingdom' - one in which there was no nobility or monarchy, but one in which the educated and monied elites still ruled. Whereas Jefferson and Madison were much more of the school of "elightented self interest". This started causing schisms within the Washington administration.

Hence when Jefferson decided to oppose Adams in the election of 1800, his movement was titled "The Democratic Republicans" - later to be shortened to just Democratic Party. Besides Madison v. Marbury, three major issues immediately sprang up to test the balance of power between the Executive and the Congress:

• The National Bank - which Jefferson essentially cut funding for and Andrew Jackson killed.
• Battleing the French and Spanish in Florida without a declaration of War
• The Louisiana Purchase - which was in no small part a defensive move to secure the southern and western border from France and Spain

In the 1st case, Jefferson essentially ignored Congress and in the latter two cases he arrogated powers to the Presidency that he himself had previously decried.

So that push-me-pull you has been around pretty much since the inception of the republic. And it was the very existance of that push-me-pull you that created the 2 party system

So how do you abolish parties? Free Association is guaranteed by the US Constitution, and the 2 party schism was an organic (self-organizing) outgrowth of the "no parties" system at the inception of the republic.