Not Invited to the Party: How the Demopublicans Have Rigged the System and Left Independents Out in the Cold

by James T. Bennett, Ralph Nader (Foreword)

Not Invited to the Party demonstrates how the dominant political parties--the Democrats and Republicans--have co-opted the system to their advantage. James Bennett examines the history and array of laws, regulations, subsidies and programs that benefit the two major parties and discourage even the possibility of a serious challenge to the Democrat-Republican duopoly. The American Founders, as it has been generally forgotten, distrusted political parties. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution are parties mentioned, much less given legal protection or privilege. This provocative book traces how by the end of the Civil War the Republicans and Democrats had guaranteed their dominance and subsequently influenced a range of policies developed to protect the duopoly. For example, Bennett examines how the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as amended in 1974 and 1976), which was sold to the public as a nonpartisan act of good government reformism actually reinforced the dominance of the two parties. While focused primarily on the American experience, the book also considers the prevalence of two-party systems around the world (especially in emerging democracies) and the widespread contempt with which they are often viewed. Featuring incisive commentary on the 2008 election, and a foreword by third-party iconoclast, Ralph Nader, the book considers the potential of truly radical reform toward opening the field to vigorous, lively, contentious independent candidacies that might finally offer alienated voters a choice, not an echo.

Genres: Nonfiction

223 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Joanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always wondered why do we have only two parties that really count. It is not too much to choose from. It corrupts the system in a way, that it is enough to make the other guy look bad in order to win, without presenting real alternative. James T. Bennett analyzes the roots of political duopoly in this informative, although dense book. His libertarian views are a little too visible for a book that was supposed to be objective, but still he askes all the important questions.

Bennett starts with the notion that The Founders distrusted political parties. They corrupt the politician and put the party loyalty above everything else. At the same time The Fathers didn't really see a way around it.

At the beginning there was no laws regulating who can, who can not put their name on the tickes, or who can vote (if you were a white man, I guess). The turnout was extremely high. Things had started changing at the end of 19th century, along with the adoption of so called "Australian ballot law" - where all the candidates were putting their name on one list and voters had to choose. This is more or less what we are using today, and sounds quite logical. But it also meant that for the first time someone (state authourities) had to decide whose name can go on the ballot, which opened the way to voting rules, restrictions and laws. It became easy for the parties who got most of the votes to create laws, that will keep this status quo. The bar for the outsiders gets set higher and higher, and today is no different.

The biggest hurdle of third party presidential candidates today is to get on the ballot. They are spending most of their limited resources on this phase, which is non-existent problem for Democrats or Republicans. And even if they make it, they are treated as "cuckoos" because they challenge the status quo of just two parties. They are hardly covered by media (so how are we supposed to learn what do they stand for?), they are not invited to presidential debates, they usually do not qualify for public funding.

This is very informative book, and you can feel Bennett's passion about this issue. I only wish he restrained from mocking remarks when writing about things he didn't agree with, because at those time he didn't sound lika scholar, but like a politician. For this reason I am lowering the rating to three stars. But I am still recommending this book to anyone who is interested in politics and the history of politics.

Few weeks later: after reconsideration - I am moving this up to four stars. I have learnt a lot from this book.

[Mandy McHenry · Rating 3 out of 5]

A First Reads win!!

3.5 stars. A little hard to read, but I attribute most of that to reading late at night. I admit that I skimmed some pages that seemed to drag on and on. However, some very powerful statements are in this book. For example, "Three hundred million people. Two choices. It doesn't add up." It's so true! I had no idea how many hoops these parties (other than R and D) have to jump through just to get their names on the ballot.

I am sick of voting for the lesser of the two evils. It shouldn't have to be that way. I demand more choices!

Recommend this book to everyone, ESPECIALLY before elections.

[Marvin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A first-read win.

This brief but dense book may not be the easiest read but it sets out to do what it is meant to do and does it extremely well, hence the four stars. Bennett gives a detailed look at why third parties have it so hard in the Untied State and how the two main parties, Democrats and Republicans, stack the field against any competition. I do not necessarily buy the "Tweedledum/Tweedledee" argument that the parties are no different from each other. Yet it can be said that the two parties are so immersed in keeping power that they are willing to sell their values, and henceforth the people, to preserving a perpetually corrupt system. Bennett goes to the beginning to show how the founding fathers encouraged a system of free ideas and multiple parties. He then explains various bills, particularly FECA in 1973, that proceeded to do the opposite. He is quite persuasive. His Libertarian ideology does tend to get in the way a bit but his overall ascertain for the need of dissenting viewpoints through third parties is quite convincing. The foreword is written by Ralph Nader who is as far as you can get from a Libertarian. As a card-carrying liberal I tend to favor public campaigning funding. Yet I find his arguments on how public funding favors a two party system causing me to reconsider. He also has some nice chapters on the 2008 campaign and how multiple party systems fare in other countries. This book may have a narrow interest factor but those who read it will have plenty of information to digest.

[Alan Zundel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Makes the case the ballot access laws (of course) and campaign financing reforms (surprise) help prop up the party duopoly and hobble independent and third party candidates. Marshals a lot of political science research to back it up.

Campaign spending limits and limits on donations advantage incumbents because challengers need to spend more money to get well known and beat political advantages of being an incumbent. Public financing laws are written in ways so as to channel more money to parties that get more votes, creating a vicious cycle. Public disclosure of campaign contributors makes potential donors leery of making enemies by donating to dark horses.

Discouraging to realize the system is even more impervious than I thought it was. His proposed solutions are cutting the size of government so donors have less to gain from political access (the author is a Libertarian) and instant runoff voting.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished reading this book. While I agree with some of what the author says, there were a few things I didn't quite agree with. All in all though, it was a good read, and I will be sharing it with some political friends to get their opinions on it. :)

[L]

I'm having a hard time getting into this book - it's interesting, but very dense.