Is it possible for folks in Congress to “reorganize?” (1 Viewer)

The common advice to people who don’t feel properly represented is “vote third party.”  Currently, that is mostly a protest vote given that Libertarian, Green, etc. will never garner enough votes for it to matter. Even to hit the 15% debate threshold. Putting aside that Congress, Republican and Democrat parties are corrupt and controlling, and many would view this idea as political suicide, what would happen if a bunch of like-minded folks already in Congress had a super-top-secret meeting and agreed to Big Bang their own brand new party?  It could be the most conservative, the most liberal, whatever.  Party switching has been pretty rare, and only happens as individuals or handfuls. So, what do you think would happen if a group was large enough to really #### up the two party system we have now?

Asking from a position of ignorance and curiosity. 

I don't think the current structure would make it possible. I think if you added members to the House of Representatives....you would start to see more Third Party members enter the power structures of the government.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november-december-2018/to-fix-congress-make-it-bigger-much-bigger/

The Tea Party already tried this. 

Thunderlips said:

I don't think the current structure would make it possible. I think if you added members to the House of Representatives....you would start to see more Third Party members enter the power structures of the government.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november-december-2018/to-fix-congress-make-it-bigger-much-bigger/

Click to expand...

We need to expand the House dramatically. Its ridiculous it hasn't been expanded for 100 years.

So many of them are so selfish I don't think they would take the risk...one person I could see trying this is AOC...if the dems try to marginalize her I could see her having just enough ego and stones to do it...on the GOP side while he is not in congress Charlie Baker (or Charlie Parker as Biden calls him) is a man without a home and while I don't see him doing it he would be a perfect candidate to do so.

One thing I would really like to see is a rule where these dopes have to spend far more (almost all) time in their home districts then at DC...get out of the DC abyss and don't lose touch with what got you there...with all the new tech advance this should be easy to do.

Boston said:

So many of them are so selfish I don't think they would take the risk...one person I could see trying this is AOC...if the dems try to marginalize her I could see her having just enough ego and stones to do it...on the GOP side while he is not in congress Charlie Baker (or Charlie Parker as Biden calls him) is a man without a home and while I don't see him doing it he would be a perfect candidate to do so.

One thing I would really like to see is a rule where these dopes have to spend far more (almost all) time in their home districts then at DC...get out of the DC abyss and don't lose touch with what got you there...with all the new tech advance this should be easy to do.

Click to expand...

It seems like this would strengthen the House majority/minority leadership teams.   

johnnycakes said:

The Tea Party already tried this. 

Click to expand...

Did they, though?  I always viewed that more as an organization designed to hold people hostage rather than actually becoming a true political party. 

The Future Champs said:

It seems like this would strengthen the House majority/minority leadership teams.   

Click to expand...

Please explain further.

There's an old law I'd love to see revisited. It's from around 1911 or so and it limits the number of Congressmen at 435. If we allowed for representation of smaller districts then I think candidates would not be so party dependent for fundraising to reach what have really become huge districts. Somewhere in the background I think this dependence explains what has happened with Trump and the GOP where so many Congressmen have just fallen in line. 

-jb- said:

The common advice to people who don’t feel properly represented is “vote third party.”  Currently, that is mostly a protest vote given that Libertarian, Green, etc. will never garner enough votes for it to matter. Even to hit the 15% debate threshold. Putting aside that Congress, Republican and Democrat parties are corrupt and controlling, and many would view this idea as political suicide, what would happen if a bunch of like-minded folks already in Congress had a super-top-secret meeting and agreed to Big Bang their own brand new party?  It could be the most conservative, the most liberal, whatever.  Party switching has been pretty rare, and only happens as individuals or handfuls. So, what do you think would happen if a group was large enough to really #### up the two party system we have now?

Asking from a position of ignorance and curiosity. 

Click to expand...

If they want to resign and run again under a new banner sure go for it. If they switched and stayed I would never trust them again. 

Mile High said:

If they want to resign and run again under a new banner sure go for it. If they switched and stayed I would never trust them again. 

Click to expand...

Understand your perspective. However, if you voted for someone, he or she would conceivably join a newly-created party that would reflect the values you voted for. 

Boston said:

Please explain further.

Click to expand...

Each party has roughly 200+ Reps.   That’s a lot of people to interact with, and limiting the amount of time for interaction will only strengthen the ability of the existing leadership to control the agenda.

Pure ivory tower/pie in sky stuff here, but I think another way for Reps/Senators to be individual coalition makers again would be to take away executive order powers by some sort of Constitutional amendment. This would (might) make Speakers and Majority Leaders actual powers again and may make coalitions necessary. The way it is now - and with gerrymandering, which is another problem - what happens is Congressmen can just leave it to the President and the courts to sort things out. All that matters is appealing to the base, not governing. They don't govern because they don't have to govern. I know this won't happen, but basically the lack powerlessness is its own self-defining effect causing politicians in Congressmen to really not "do" anything. 

johnnycakes said:

The Tea Party already tried this. 

Click to expand...

While they had a formal organization, they were still part of the GOP party. I think the progressive part of the Democrats are doing similar. There are a few different formal organizations but they still run as part of the Democrat party. 

johnnycakes said:

The Tea Party already tried this. 

Click to expand...

The Tea Party was fully funded by Republican donors, it was not attempting to make a 3rd party.

1. Ranked order voting will help third parties achieve relevance.

2. Increase the size of the House.

3. Move to a proportional representation scheme by state rather than winner-take-all of each district.  For example, there are currently 5 districts in CT.  Let's triple the size of the House, such that CT has 15 reps.  Then we vote as an entire state for a slate of candidates, including third parties.  We then take the top 15 vote getters for the state, instead of 1 winner per district.

Rich Conway said:

1. Ranked order voting will help third parties achieve relevance.

2. Increase the size of the House.

3. Move to a proportional representation scheme by state rather than winner-take-all of each district.  For example, there are currently 5 districts in CT.  Let's triple the size of the House, such that CT has 15 reps.  Then we vote as an entire state for a slate of candidates, including third parties.  We then take the top 15 vote getters for the state, instead of 1 winner per district.

Click to expand...

(Bolding mine) This seems like a good way to get crackpots, when you figure that the top 2-4 people will have the vast majority of votes, by the time you get to 15 you are going to be getting to people that have 200 votes for some conspiracy theory about how vaccines cause COVID and the country is ran by lizard people. Ranked choice + a increase in house size should be enough to allow people to vote for their favorites. Allowing #53 in votes to become a congress person in CA just means you are going to have some nut. 

huthut said:

(Bolding mine) This seems like a good way to get crackpots, when you figure that the top 2-4 people will have the vast majority of votes, by the time you get to 15 you are going to be getting to people that have 200 votes for some conspiracy theory about how vaccines cause COVID and the country is ran by lizard people. Ranked choice + a increase in house size should be enough to allow people to vote for their favorites. Allowing #53 in votes to become a congress person in CA just means you are going to have some nut. 

Click to expand...

Seems like you could solve that problem by giving each voter the ability to vote for multiple people.  Say each voter could vote for up to 15 candidates in this example.

How could this happen? If the Democrats got majorities in the Senate and House and won the Presidency could they just pass a law to double or triple the members of the House?

This would reduce the power of the small states in the EC which would marginally reduce the current GOP advantage there. So I can't see the GOP going for it. If the small states favored the Democrats they wouldn't go for it either.  I'm not sure that even Reps and Senators in the small blue states would want to reduce their influence. It would certainly reduce the power of individual congressman in both small and big states.

Our Constitution led to the 2 party system. It's a structural issue. Maybe if they adopted proportial voting by state you'd have some 3rd party types, but again, that would require current pols in the state legislatures to reduce their power abd for those with political ambitions for higher office create more competitors.

  If were going to look at it from the POTUS elections the only 3rd party candidates that actually won states were Strom Thurmond (later known as the father of the current version of the GOP) and George Wallace. Everyone knows what those 2 guys were all about. It makes me wonder what's so great about 3rd parties. Why should I think the most prominent ones now, the Libertarians and the Green Party, are anything  but a bunch of crackpots?