For representational government to work it must have a functional system for rotation in office and for the removal of representatives who have become jaded in their work and lost the confidence of the people. As it exists now our electoral system has become an enabler of perpetual incumbency and that is a formula for tyranny.
The stagnation in our electoral system is largely the result of entrenched interests within the political party system using their fundraising ability and their institutional power to maintain the status quo. They support the established incumbent leaders in power against any challengers with the goal of keeping the party leadership structure and position of power held by that establishment stable and intact. They place the power of the party ahead of the will of the people.
In the 2010 election there were a number of Republican primaries where organizations like the Republican National Committee or state or county Republican Party organizations used the money of their members and their influence within the party to try to block challenges to incumbent or picked establishment candidates from tea party candidates who had much greater popular support like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. They spent money donated by party members to keep insider incumbents in power, often directly against the desire and best interests of those party members who wanted very much to see change in the party and in those holding office.
As a result of this donations to major party organizations like the RNC, the NRSC, the RCCC and even state parties have fallen off dramatically as rank and file party members have begun to give their money to more specialized groups which advocate change or directly to candidates they like. This is a positive step for the Republican Party and the beginning of what could become a movement to break the power of establishment party interests and reassert the voice of the people in our elections.
A new group called Fair Primary 2012 is entering into this battle with the goal of convincing Republican party organizations that they should keep their money and their influence out of primary elections and instead spend that money and use their resources on supporting Republican candidates in the general election against the Democrats. Incumbents inherently have a lot of advantages just because they are already in office. Empowering them even further with party money and party organizations blocking challenges in the primary makes elections unfair and cheats the people of a voice in choosing the kind of representation they want in government.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
Gordon -
You might get quite a few candidates to sign on to this pledge...but your pledge will go the way of every such promise, like the ones where the candidates promise not to use negative campaigning. Such pledges and promises go right out the window when the goal is political power.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.
2 - Dave Nalle
Not sure you read the article, Glenn. The pledge is not really for candidates or leaders, it's for regular people to sign.
Dave
3 - Glenn Contrarian
When it's directed at the party organizations - as you state that your pledge is - then it's also directed at the candidates.
Furthermore, if you demand that candidates raise their own money so they can win on their own merits, you invite the entrenchment of oligarchy.
4 - Dave Nalle
As I said, you clearly didn't read the article, Glenn.
Dave
5 - Glenn Contrarian
I did, Dave - and are the party organizations comprised of its members, and are the organizations answerable to is members? Yes. And page 2 of the article shows how the pledge is meant to affect the organizations.
And if you affect the organizations, you affect the candidates.
In other words, Dave, please bring your nose down out of the clouds and see that maybe, just maybe those who say things that you don't like might actually have a point.
6 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, It's not that I don't "like" what you are saying, it's that it makes no sense.
You don't seem to understand the difference between candidacy and incumbency. The idea here is clearly to take away one of the advantages which incumbents have and put them on more of a level playing field with other candidates.
Dave
7 - Baronius
I thought the RNC already said that it won't be endorsing candidates before the primaries.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave, a candidate might not be an incumbent, but any incumbent that's running is still a candidate...and if you or the author think that the Republican incumbents will allow their advantage to be chipped away at, you're more naive than I gave you credit for.
In case you haven't noticed, over the past several Republican primaries, the winner has normally been the one who was "next in line". Have any of the recent Republican nominees been anyone other than whom everyone expected it to be? That's why it will almost certainly be Romney this time.
The Dems, on the other hand, are not so uncomfortable with choosing someone who is relatively new and not seen as being "next in line". This can be said of nearly every Dem candidate since LBJ left the scene.
9 - zingzing
"This can be said of nearly every Dem candidate since LBJ left the scene."
two things. clinton! he certainly wasn't new (i know that's not what you meant, but that brought up another thought... a terrible thought). other than clinton, it's been since fdr that a dem has won two presidential elections. that's crazy. and before that, it's wilson. before that, cleveland, but not twice in a row. before that was jackson, but that twat's as much a republican as anything. so really, there's clinton, fdr and wilson that are dems who have retained the presidency. that's fucking it. scary.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
I should have been clearer - I meant those running for their first term. Before their respective presidential races, I think I can safely say that the majority of voters had not heard of McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis (ugh!), Clinton, and particularly Obama. They HAD of course heard of Gore, Hillary, and (probably) Kerry.
I don't think the same can be said of the Republicans.
11 - zingzing
i know, glenn. just showing my train of thought. dark, dark places.
12 - RJ
10:
Walter Mondale was Vice President for 4 years. I hope the majority of voters had heard of him...
13 - RJ
Incidentally, the timestamp for comments is off by quite a bit...it's 10:17 am Eastern as I post this...
14 - RJ
Yep. Comments are posting five minutes ahead of Pacific Time.