The Founding Fathers of the United States of America created the federal government as a government for the people that is determined by the people. The intention was to have the public vote serve as the only factor in determining which officials would have the opportunity and ability to serve the people. Unfortunately, a second group of constituents has appeared that was not drafted in the Constitution: money. Lawrence Lessig, an American political activist, expressed his concerns in a talk given at TED about how it is almost as important for candidates to satisfy the money election as the general election. Political parties make the problem exponentially worse, as the small amount of constituents who donate the majority of the money can dictate which party wins the election.
Lessig starts his presentation by imagining a version of America where there is an established government with two different elections: one is the general election where every citizen votes once, and the other is an election set aside in which only people named Lester can vote. The country is dubbed Lesterland as a result. Lessig continues by revealing that the Lester election is comparable to how money works. He noted that an incredibly small percentage of Americans (.000042%) contribute about 60% of the Super PAC’s total money. Lessig then says that the funders, the constituents who fund the PACs or candidates directly, can serve as the Lesters in the Lester election. A candidate wins the election by winning the general election, but that is usually only achieved by winning the Lester/funder/money election. That is where the problem lies. The candidates must try to appease the money equally (or sometimes even more) than the general population. If the candidate is elected, they must then do everything to keep the funders/Lesters on their side. So they are forced to continue to appeal to the Lesters/funders while in their term to seek consecutive terms for themselves or their parties because it all boils down to achieving/retaining power, not serving the people.
A political science textbook from Boundless begs to differ and claims that the competition between the two parties benefits the people. In businesses, competing companies often lower prices to compete with each other, benefiting the consumer. In a similar manner, parties offering certain beliefs or opinions (that can be put into law when power is attained) that are “better” or more popular than the opposing party’s will be more successful. Along with beliefs and opinions come incentives. One party might propose a new bill that will increase funding to find a cure for cancer. If a constituent has a family member or friend with cancer or even just supports a cancer-free society, they will be more inclined to vote for that party.
I want to write about the discrepancies and questions regarding the effectiveness of political parties to figure out how efficient and effective our current government is and whether or not it could be made more efficient and effective. Both the argument that money “corrupts” and competition benefits the consumer are equally valid theoretically, but the deciding factor is the moral quality of the candidates. Can we as a nation trust in our officials and believe that their intention is to benefit us, the constituents, instead of themselves?Boundless Link: https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/interest-groups-7/the-two-party-system-54/the-two-party-system-313-5192/
