(A really great series here. - promoted by lipris)
Continuing my earlier series on selfish reasons to support reforming the New York State Legislature (1 2), here are reasons why political parties and at least some political party leaders stand to benefit from such reform.
As usual, these are somewhat cynical perspectives.
Relevance. Everything else in this list flows from relevance. Right now parties seem tied into the state legislative stalemate, moving at the state level only when there seems to be a clear opportunity. More opportunities should mean a lot less torpor, and a lot more reason for voters to be interested in parties. |
More energy in legislative races. In situations where it's clear who's going to win, the only people excited about working on campaigns are likely those who want something from the candidates (or haven't figured out the system yet). Way too much of the energy in legislative campaigns seems to come from people working on other campaigns who don't mind carrying an extra petition or putting another sign in their yard. Except in genuinely contested races, legislative races seem pretty much a drain on party resources. More ambition yields more energy at lower levels. A county legislator with a safe seat who expects to be there forever isn't likely to pour energy into campaigning. A county legislator who hopes to become an Assembly member has motivation to get out there, to make friends, to build an active volunteer base, to build a strong fundraising list. Less cynicism should make it easier to draw volunteers. Voters can still rev up the anger to help out when national issues are concerned, but on state issues it seems like all sides are stuck in a deeply boring truce, except in the occasional gubernatorial years when there's a chance of a close race. More opportunity for more parties. I like the two opposing parties system in principle, but when one side or another has too much dominance, it's hard for interesting things to happen. New York State third parties seem mostly to endorse or not endorse existing candidates, but a more open ballot system would raise more opportunities for challenge - and help parties old and new involve more people in the process. Potentially less factionalism within parties. I can see people shaking their heads at the prospect of more parties, but there are times in both dominant parties when it probably makes sense for groups to go their own ways. Consensus has to be real for it to be enjoyable, and it doesn't seem like one-party boards have much less factionalism. Fewer signatures? The petition process isn't all bad - it certainly gets at least some party activists out to talk with the public. Unfortunately much of that conversation is about how to fill out the petitions correctly, and the very presence of petitions seems to make some people suspicious. I'm less certain about this, but suspect parties might do well to invest time in other means of reaching voters. More meaningful fundraising. If campaign finance reform can break up the larger sums of money flowing to and among legislators, contributions from individuals will feel like a more important piece of the puzzle. Less stifling expectations of unity and loyalty. Both of these are virtues in the right contexts, but paired with a legislative system which appears to see them as the only virtues, they can create incredible cynicism. Open disputes may seem unpleasant or impolite, but they can relieve tensions rather than piling them up and up.
A lot of how well this will work depends on leadership. Too little leadership, and there will likely be anarchy in the parties. Too much leadership, and they will stultify. Right now - looking at the state as a whole - I think we could use a big dose of openness.
I'd be curious what other people think, especially people involved in party activities. (Of any party!) |
