Some countries have more than two political parties and seem to establish a majority rule much easier than we in the United States.
In the establishment of our national government it was believed that the people should be represented and perhaps better without parties.
Therefore not much attention was paid to possible effect that parties would have on the daily function of government in the Senate, the House of Representatives and in the office of the presidency, especially if the three branches were not in the control of the same party.
The two chambers established their own rules for the operation of each the two branches. An example of a recent rule is that of the “implied filibuster” utilized to prevent the majority party from functioning in the Senate by the mere announcement by one more Senators of a filibuster against the passage of a bill.
Perhaps more importantly is the election process under the partisan culture that has evolved, especially in the required attainment of huge sums of money in order to become a significant candidate for one of the members of one of the chambers, let alone in running for the presidency.
Certainly, the writers of the constitution did not consider the role that money plays in gaining elected office today. In a sense, we are not governed under the kind of constitution they had in mind, even without considering the changes made by Supreme Court interpretations.
The role of a paid lobbyist system that has prospered with the party system moves “the will of the people” even further from any role in the governing process.
Today’s system has developed to a situation of two political parties constantly at war on a daily basis without much consideration for the “will of the people.” There is little that the two parties can agree upon. In fact, they move in opposite directions.
Each party is opposed to almost anything that the other stands for. There is no room for compromise. The situation today cannot justify any reason for the existence of the Senate, a chamber that was a compromise to those writers of the Constitution who were strong believers in “State rights.”
What to do about what has become a political and governing mess? (This is only an introduction to the subject, more discussion later in coming blogs.)