Comment by Nevermark
3 days ago
For congressional seat/term limits on parties.
Lots of ways to achieve that. I am not going to pick here. That’s an interesting discussion in its own right. But simple examples that demonstrate limits: parties can only operate in 10 states or less (for congressional candidates). Or parties can only hold 30% or less of congressional seats in either house. Etc.
In the short run, it enforces bipartisanship,
In the long run, it kills long term incentives to attempt to achieve single party rule temporarily, permanent or effectively permanent. Which has been a very destructive incentive driving tremendous organized partisan efforts. (Even when not achieved, the pursuit kills bipartisanship and competition on policy, in pursuit of a lasting hold on power.)
And it would open up elections to more parties, more choices, and force more flexibility, adaptation and collaboration from all parties, instead of more two party polarization and entrenchment.
> For congressional seat/term limits on parties.
Limits on parties like you discuss are a dumb idea, because they are trivially evaded by factional alliances that aren't formally parties.
OTOH, you wouldn't even need to have a reason to consider them if you simply had an electoral system that didn't lead to national duopoly frequently consisting of regional monopolies, e.g., if the legislative branch was elected in multiseat districts with a system structurally providing roughly proportional results, like Single Transferrable Vote.
The social technology of democracy has advanced since the 18th Century, but the most important parts of that advance, have been ignored in the US, at least at the federal level and statewide levels, though some local use is seen.