America has a problem with factionalism:

--------

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
	Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.


http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/07/schumer-promises-filibuster-of-gorsuch/
	Schumer promises filibuster of Gorsuch

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/kfile-mcclintock-democrats-civil-war/
	GOP congressman: Democrats acting the same way they did leading up to Civil War

	McClintock said it was the same Democratic Party that seceded from the union in 1861 that was protesting today.

	"The same Democratic party that is reacting in a similar manner today," he said. "Now again, we're not anywhere nearly as far down the road as we got, but we know where that road leads and it's not a good place. Our entire system of government works as long as Americans are talking with each other and not shouting at each other, and that's what makes these times so disturbing and potentially so dangerous. People have stopped talking with each other."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michigan-gop-official-kent-state_us_58952eafe4b09bd304bb86f0
	Michigan GOP Official Calls For 'Another Kent State' For Campus Protesters

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-huntsman-lieberman-obstruction-20170216-story.html
	And for more than two centuries — except for the Civil War — Americans have showed that collaboration works best in the service of perfecting the union. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Bipartisan cooperation has sustained American peace and prosperity.

	That tradition, and with it our democracy, is now at risk. We’re hardly the first to decry the rampant polarization and partisanship in Washington and across the country. But the anger and alienation that began under President George W. Bush and worsened under President Obama has reached a fever pitch early in the Trump administration, and has us both asking — though from different parties — the same question: How can this possibly end well for the U.S.?

--------

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
	No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

	It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249705366_Do_Corporate_PACs_Restrict_CompetitionAn_Empirical_Examination_of_Industry_PAC_Contributions_and_Entry
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1177/000765039803700202
	Corporate political action committees (PACs) play a prominent role in the political strategies of U.S. organizations, and the ability of firms to influence political outcomes is highly controversial. TO the extent that PACs enable groups of firms to pursue corporate agendas at the expense of the social good, they promote social suboptimal outcomes. This study examines the impact of corporate PACs on entry restriction in manufacturing industries and finds a negative relationship between corporate PAC spending and the entry of new firms. results suggest that PACs are used to shape industry structure to the economic benefit of incumbents.

http://www.businessinsider.com/princeton-and-northwestern-study-on-elite-influence-in-politics-2014-4
	As you can see, the probability of a policy adoption barely changes whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favors a particular policy. Meanwhile a policy with low support from the rich is adopted about 18% of the time, while a policy with high support is adopted 45% of the time, according to the study.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150901040354/http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-quietly-discourage-biden-2016-bid-33374845
	In ways both subtle and blunt, Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is sending a message to Vice President Joe Biden about his potential presidential campaign: This won't be easy.

	While Clinton and her team speak warmly of Biden in public, they have taken steps to make clear how they've taken control of the party's establishment in hopes of discouraging the vice president from entering the race.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489
	In a dozen interviews, major Democratic donors in the financial services industry said they saw little chance that Clinton would pick the liberal firebrand as her vice presidential nominee. These donors despise Warren’s attacks on the financial industry. But they also think her selection would be damaging to the economy. And they warned that if Clinton surprises them and taps Warren, big donations from the industry could vanish.

http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2015/06/11/an-outsiders-guide-to-running-and-losing-a-california-election/ideas/nexus/
	But the Republican hurdle was the highest one to cross. Years of defeat had generated a completely understandable malaise on the part of regular donors. Yes, many gave to Republicans outside of California, or to more local legislative or Congressional races, but the thought of a Republican winning statewide in the Golden State appeared as a bridge too far. One major Republican donor offered this during one of my calls: “I’ll write you a small check, but it might be bad luck, since the last four statewide Republicans I’ve given to all lost.” In the end, I made it five in a row.

	...Also favoring the insider—particularly in California—is the substantial presence of the “third house”—a vast network of associations, corporations, and unions with lobbying interests in Sacramento. Most Californians have never heard of the California Infill Builders Federation PAC, the Technet California Political Action Committee, or the California Refuse Recycling Council North PAC, but these groups (and dozens more) contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to my opponent.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/15/rand-paul-makes-no-sense-republicans-investigate-trump/97939246/
	Rand Paul: 'Makes no sense' for Republicans to investigate Trump

	"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party," Paul said in an appearance on Fox News Radio's "Kilmeade and Friends." ''We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do like repealing Obamacare if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/republicans-obamacare-protests-safety-234733
	Republicans fear for their safety as Obamacare protests grow

--------

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
	The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.


https://democracychronicles.com/signature-campaigns-independent-candidates/
	As the story says, normal petitioning on the street barely works, and petitioners find they must first get a list of registered Republicans and then try to find them at home. This is why the new legislation in Arizona, HB 3605, is so devastating to Arizona’s minor parties. The bill requires over 5,500 signatures of party members (or registered independents) and the Green Party only has about 6,000 registered members in the state.

http://www.twcnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2016/12/4/film-crew-takes-closer-look-at-running-as-an-independent.html
	The producers hope viewers will learn more about what struggles independent candidates face.

	'There are systems in place to help Democrats and Republicans run and get volunteers. And somebody who wants to try and run on their own with their message, their own party, it's really difficult, and I think we just want people to understand that'

http://www.gallup.com/poll/185891/majority-maintain-need-third-major-party.aspx
	A majority of Americans, 60%, say a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties "do such a poor job" of representing the American people.

--------

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
	From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

	A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

	The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

	The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.

	...

	Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments.


http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/LaymanCarseyReview2006.pdf
	A growing body of empirical research shows that the parties in government, particularly those in Congress, are each growing more homogeneous in their policy positions, while the differences between the two parties’ stands on major policy issues are expanding. Related to elite-level party divergence has been increasing ideological polarization among the parties’ mass identifiers and activist bases.

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/pub/Druckman%20Peterson%20Slothuus%20APSR%202013.pdf
    Competition is a defining element of democracy. One of the most noteworthy events over the last quarter-century in U.S. politics is the change in the nature of elite party competition: The parties have become increasingly polarized. Scholars and pundits actively debate how these elite patterns influence polarization among the public (e.g., have citizens also become more ideologically polarized?). Yet, few have addressed what we see as perhaps more fundamental questions: Has elite polarization altered the way citizens arrive at their policy opinions in the first place and, if so, in what ways? We address these questions with a theory and two survey experiments (on the issues of drilling and immigration). We find stark evidence that polarized environments fundamentally change how citizens make decisions. Specifically, polarization intensifies the impact of party endorsements on opinions, decreases the impact of substantive information and, perhaps ironically, stimulates greater confidence in those—less substantively grounded—opinions. We discuss the implications for public opinion formation and the nature of democratic competition.

http://web02.gonzaga.edu/comltheses/proquestftp/Thornal_gonzaga_0736M_10483.pdf
    The increasing levels of political polarization in America have communication scholars, political scientists, and media pundits alike examining the causes of this trend, many of whom look to blame the proliferation of partisan media for this societal ill. An abundance of research exists on the effects of selective exposure to partisan media and the rise of political polarization in America today;thus, this thesis explores how partisan selective exposure and political polarization are related through a modified qualitative meta-analysis of existing research on these two topics. The social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and social comparison (Festinger, 1954) theories provide the theoretical framework for this study. Central to the relationship are four main themes:

        1. Evidence suggests that partisan selective exposure contributes to political polarization;

        2. American political elites are polarized;

        3. Most Americans are tuned to something other than the news and thus, are not politically polarized by partisan media;

        4. Politically engaged partisans, those who occupy the fringes of the American electorate and yet, wield immense political influence, are the most polarized by selective exposure to partisan media.

    The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that increased polarization of politically engaged partisans due to these factors has serious implications for our nation’s democratic processes. Further research is needed to explore the effects of a tuned out American electorate and how to re-engage them in a national political conversation.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/11/few-see-quick-cure-for-nations-political-divisions/#publics-not-so-happy-new-year
	As 2014 draws to a close, the public is deeply pessimistic about the prospects for healing the nation’s deep political divisions. And most Americans think continued partisan gridlock would wreak significant damage on the country.

	...

	Fully 71% say a failure of Republicans and Democrats to work together over the next two years would hurt the nation “a lot” and 16% say it will hurt “some.” While the negative impact of political gridlock is seen as being most acute for the country as a whole, 45% say they would be hurt a lot personally by an absence of partisan cooperation, and 28% would be hurt some. Notably, there are only minimal partisan differences in these opinions.

	...

	Weeks before the start of the new Congress, the public takes a dim view of Congress and both political parties. Just 22% express a favorable opinion of Congress; positive views of Congress have remained below 30% for more than three years.


--------

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington's_Farewell_Address
	All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

	However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

	Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

	I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

	This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

	The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

	Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

	It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

	...

	In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course, which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.


--------

Our government was designed so that "enlightened statesmen" can protect us from popular factions. Instead, elected officials and powerful "politically engaged partisans" are more polarized than the public. They have institutionalized political parties and block outsiders, even though the public dislikes the dominant parties.

Washington warned that the "spirit of party ... opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions." You can see this playing out in our government today with Clinton's many politicized scandals and Congress blocking impartial investigations into Trump's Russia ties.

I fear that if our members of Congress keep acting out of party loyalty alone, Washington's warning of our nation "running the course" could come true. Could you help me convince Congress to listen to Washington?