Forcing The Hand Of Political Cooperation
Forcing The Hand Of Political Cooperation
In a recent article, I discussed some possible alternatives to what I feel is a broken electoral system.
Efforts to remove or reduce the power of the political party machines, bolster centrist candidates who actually represent the views of the majority of Americans, promote independent third-party options, and eliminate political advertising would surely steer us onto the right path. Think of this as a companion piece to that article.
There’s more that we can do as well. My wife has a suggestion that seems extreme, but falls under the category of just crazy enough to work. After winning their respective primaries, why not limit running mates for Vice President to members of the other party?
I know it sounds nuts. But hear me out.
There are already limits on running mate choices. Because state electors can’t vote for more than one candidate from a given state, it is functionally untenable for a candidate to pick a running mate from their own state; they’d be disincluding their own choice. This would only take such limits a step further.
Crossover parties in the White House have happened before. Our original elections had two candidates chosen, with the top vote-getter being named President and the runner-up Vice President, regardless of party affiliation. For decades after that was changed, the two positions were elected separately on different ballots, again regardless of party affiliation.
The people decided - not the government, and not the candidates themselves. Eventually, as with all good things, that too was scrapped.
Republican Abraham Lincoln actually chose Democrat Andrew Johnson as his running mate in an attempted show of unity during the Civil War. Ironically, Johnson opposed Emancipation and Reconstruction and was eventually impeached after succeeding Lincoln (but that is a different story for another day).
It was only after that happened that states started putting running mates on the same ticket, removing the voters’ ability to split up the parties in an administration. This was yet another instance of government getting stronger at the expense of the people, usurping our decisions to replace with their own.
What could be the benefits of instituting such a policy? They are numerous if you think about it.
Firstly, people from the losing side would feel that they have a voice in the room (even if not the final voice). The shared public feeling that the other side’s extremists are colluding unchecked for four years on national policy would be alleviated, at least somewhat.
Secondly, there would actually be some checks and balances within that room. Having the input of a person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency would help to keep the extremes in check. Cabinet members could privately scoff at the ideas of the VP, but they’d do so knowing he or she could be their boss someday.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, this would help move the country closer to the center, which represents the majority of the population. Candidates wouldn’t choose an extreme member of the opposing party for fear of it costing them the general election, and because they’d want to minimize the degree of contrarian opinions within their cabinets.
Republicans, for instance, would never pick a Democratic Socialist because it would alienate their base. The same with Democrats and extreme hard-right politicians.
So Republicans would have to choose from more moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, while Democrats would pick moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney or (when he was alive) John McCain.
This would affect not just their current administrations, but also our long-term political health as a country. More visibility and power would be accorded to these moderate VPs than they’d otherwise be given, and their ability to function within a team with ideological differences would be on full display. Everyone would be able to see who the true leaders are.
In future elections, these more centrist options would then have more political clout to front their own campaigns, gradually pushing the extremes of each party closer to the periphery. Today, voters avoid centrist candidates because they think they don’t stand a chance against the party machines, a waste of their votes. But when moderate candidates become front and center in the public eye, our confidence in their abilities to actually win will allow voters to take a shot at them.
This would also have the effect of cutting government waste. Each time an administration enacts extreme policies to pander to its base, they spend untold dollars to do so. Then when the other party takes over, they in turn spend further untold dollars to reverse course.
This back-and-forth political pandering chews up huge sums of money which could obviously be better spent, or even (preferably) kept in the pockets of the taxpayers. The current see-saw effect causes mass frustration from half of the electorate every time the controlling party institutes these extremely divisive policies, only for the opposite to occur when the controlling party changes hands.
Giving greater voice - and responsibility - to more centrist politicians will lessen such extreme policy decisions, lowering voter frustration in general. It will also lessen the call for subsequent reversals, slowing down the political merry-go-round and fostering more unity in the process.
The simple implementation of this rule, to limit running mate choices to members of the opposing party, would accomplish all of these things. I can’t see a downside, other than pissing off extremists (who would be aghast, simply aghast, at having the input of other voices involved) which, when you think about it, isn’t really a downside at all.
Zephareth Ledbetter is the author of “A White Man’s Perspectives on Race and Racism”, available as an ebook at smashwords.com/books/view/1184004, and has numerous articles on SubStack
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
For our day, I think a unifying ticket would be Trump and RFK, jr.