Right now, we have a form of government which allows a few puppet-masters to dictate the country's business. This applies equally to both Democrats and Republicans. As long as one party has 60 members seated, they can become the Obstructionist party and effectively block any legislation they choose to by threatening to filibuster every new law or executive nomination. Essentially, this makes the party in power look to the American people as if they are either ineffective or bowing to the policies of their predecessors.
The rate of cloture (definition here) votes in the Congress is at the highest point ever in the history of our country. Currently, every single nomination of appellate and federal judges has been stonewalled by the Republican party so that it will take years just to get through the list - more years than Obama would have should he be re-elected. Effectively, the Republicans have cut the Democrats off at the knees. Public opinion is also being manipulated by the obstructionist party, which is why good Republicans are supplanted by horrible Democrats and vice versa. This tool is used by both parties - however, the Republicans have become VERY good at using it.
What's the solution? I think the point of this post is very well put. Without a party of any kind, a candidate would have to stand or fall on his own merits. If the American public were required to really look at a candidate rather than to rely on the ever changing labels applied to party affiliation, then perhaps the way the country does business would revert to the original values: a republic with a representative form of government - and by "representative" I mean of the people and not of the political party itself.
Currently, our senate needs 51 members present in order to take a vote on any issue - the quorum rule is a majority of members: half the possible voters + 1. Perhaps our own election process should take that same approach. In order for an election to be valid, a majority of registered voters needs to have cast a ballot. Without a quorum, the election results are rejected and the process repeated until such time as a quorum is established. In the case of an unopposed position, the same ratio would have to accept the candidate. Maybe the so-called "voter apathy" phenomenon is actually due to the fact that we aren't voting for a particular candidate so much as we're selecting a political party. If the latter is the case, then it doesn't much matter who runs for office as long as they wear the right shirt. A voting quorum could ensure that the parties field not just someone who could win an election based on simple demographics, but someone who has the confidence of the electorate.
= new reply since forum marked as read