PDA

View Full Version : Should political parties exist?



iustitia
03-28-2015, 07:15 PM
It's no question that Washington, though a Federalist-sympathizer, warned Americans of the threat posed to our republic by factions of party interests.

As time goes on in the country, less and less Americans feel represented by either major party. The three major third parties, Libertarian, Constitution and Green, get no press or coverage and are almost never welcomed to debate during elections.

Should things stay as they are with two major parties? Should perhaps room be made on stage each election for the three big third parties? Should parties be abolished altogether?

Adelaide
03-28-2015, 07:25 PM
It should be a mutli-party system. There are disadvantages at times but certainly more advantages overall.

Mr. Right
03-28-2015, 07:26 PM
If there were a way to eliminate or reduce the choke hold they have on the nation's business, I'd be all for it. When I was young, I consedered myself a democrat. As I matured and went into business, I saw that they worked against me and my goal of economice independance. They're still doing it today. As I saw the moronics of GWB, it took less than a week to abandon the Republican party.
As it stands today, the two parties cause gridlock and in order to break that gridlock, both give away the farm in an idiological sense to get what they want. It's all become very foolish.

PolWatch
03-28-2015, 07:29 PM
We would have to completely change our system of financing campaigns, but I would like to see no actual parties. I think it would provide more options for the voters and less opportunity for special interest groups to influence candidates.

Mr. Right
03-28-2015, 07:29 PM
It should be a mutli-party system. There are disadvantages at times but certainly more advantages overall.
Adelaide... It IS a mutli party system... ya nailed it :grin:

Adelaide
03-28-2015, 07:31 PM
@Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473)... It IS a mutli party system... ya nailed it :grin:

I mean more than two established parties. Ideally, four or more.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 07:39 PM
I voted for two options. My preference would be to eliminate all political parties, but I don't think we're likely to ever get that, so the next best thing would be to break apart the Republican and Democratic hold on our electoral process and give the other parties equal standing.

Mr. Right
03-28-2015, 07:43 PM
I mean more than two established parties. Ideally, four or more.

I knew what you meant, I just couldn't resist. The two parties basicly have patriotic Americans pigionholed in their beliefs. Polarizing issues like abortion and global warming have only served to divide people.

Adelaide
03-28-2015, 07:50 PM
I knew what you meant, I just couldn't resist. The two parties basicly have patriotic Americans pigionholed in their beliefs. Polarizing issues like abortion and global warming have only served to divide people.

Basically. Our system here isn't perfect but I have 3 good options and 1 reasonable option when I vote. I can't imagine having to choose between 2 evils. And our recent history has shown that parties won't always stay popular. They can come and go as official opposition or we can have minorities, or at one point there was a discussion about a possible coalition. It's nice knowing there are options.

donttread
03-28-2015, 08:23 PM
It's no question that Washington, though a Federalist-sympathizer, warned Americans of the threat posed to our republic by factions of party interests.

As time goes on in the country, less and less Americans feel represented by either major party. The three major third parties, Libertarian, Constitution and Green, get no press or coverage and are almost never welcomed to debate during elections.

Should things stay as they are with two major parties? Should perhaps room be made on stage each election for the three big third parties? Should parties be abolished altogether?

Tough question. I think abolishing parties would lead to informal parties but it might help. It couldn't make things much worse

Dragonborn Herald
03-28-2015, 08:45 PM
I really don't think there would be any difference, it would still be all the same retarded partisan bickering shit.

Peter1469
03-28-2015, 08:47 PM
Our third parties should use the Internet to broadcast their own debates. They may go viral and change the system. But they need to be smart about it and put on a quality production.

Mr. Right
03-28-2015, 08:55 PM
Each debate begins on the merits of ALL the other debates. Petty issues somehow decide serious issue b/c they're hopelessly tied together. It's the very reason that many of my government dictated issues in my business can't come to the front of the room. They're locked in idiotic partisan debate/arguement. Geeze, how I hate what our government has become.

Guerilla
03-28-2015, 09:47 PM
Basically. Our system here isn't perfect but I have 3 good options and 1 reasonable option when I vote. I can't imagine having to choose between 2 evils. And our recent history has shown that parties won't always stay popular. They can come and go as official opposition or we can have minorities, or at one point there was a discussion about a possible coalition. It's nice knowing there are options.

If we create multiple parties that actually do represent the US, then why can't everyone get the party that they vote for? I think we will always have partisanship as long as you have elections where one persons ideas will be implemented and the other persons won't. Most people are willing to live and let live, but the threat of another group of people winning a monopoly on force makes us afraid and no longer willing to live and let live. Maybe that's why things slowly become more centralized.

We need to either decentralize things a lot and then figure out how to stop things from recentralizing, or make multiple parties where each one has it's own candidates and debates within their own parties, like now, except the winner of each party would not have to campaign against the other parties like it's some sports tournament.

Dr. Who
03-28-2015, 10:02 PM
If we create multiple parties that actually do represent the US, then why can't everyone get the party that they vote for? I think we will always have partisanship as long as you have elections where one persons ideas will be implemented and the other persons won't. Most people are willing to live and let live, but the threat of another group of people winning a monopoly on force makes us afraid and no longer willing to live and let live. Maybe that's why things slowly become more centralized.

We need to either decentralize things a lot and then figure out how to stop things from recentralizing, or make multiple parties where each one has it's own candidates and debates within their own parties, like now, except the winner of each party would not have to campaign against the other parties like it's some sports tournament.
Truly multiple party systems are quite prevalent in Europe, with Italy being the example of having the most parties. However when there are too many divisions and coalitions, the government can become unstable very quickly, when the coalitions fall apart and that results in an excessive number of elections.

Mr. Right
03-28-2015, 10:24 PM
Truly multiple party systems are quite prevalent in Europe, with Italy being the example of having the most parties. However when there are too many divisions and coalitions, the government can become unstable very quickly, when the coalitions fall apart and that results in an excessive number of elections.

Duly noted, but iustia's point, and I agree, (if we're on the same wavelength) is that what we have now ain't working very well. For example, PolWatch, Safety, myself and others could sit around and shoot the breeze all day about many issues and agree on many if not most. Throw in the polar issues and sometimes we'd rather walk away than talk. If I'm wrong, correct me.

Guerilla
03-28-2015, 10:26 PM
Truly multiple party systems are quite prevalent in Europe, with Italy being the example of having the most parties. However when there are too many divisions and coalitions, the government can become unstable very quickly, when the coalitions fall apart and that results in an excessive number of elections.

I think the problem becomes how far do you take the multiple party system? Do you limit it to 4 or 5? Do you simply let the parties split off as long as a significant ideological difference is present? Do you continue to let them split uncontrollably? Do you set a predetermined number of votes in which a party would need in order to stay active? I'm not sure what the right number of parties on the spectrum is.

Some would say the logical conclusion would be self government and working with others around you. The opposite end of the spectrum would be one party authoritarianism; we should probably get at least far from that.

PolWatch
03-28-2015, 10:32 PM
I think politicians have found they can distract voters by raising hot button, non-issues. Keep the voters arguing about things that are not going to happen or that really have no bearing on their lives. Oz-behind-the-curtain continues to do whatever he wants. I suspect that on real issues, more people agree than not.

There are some who will never agree but they are the partisans who are more concerned with treating the system like a football game. They only want the enjoyment of saying their team won...whether their team has a plan or not.

PolWatch
03-28-2015, 10:37 PM
I think we could start with electing a candidate for each state. Then, perhaps have regional elections and then national elections. I think we would have more of a chance of getting someone who really knew what the voters wanted and would have had the advantage of creating winning platform based on those wants. The voters would know that their vote really did matter.

Dr. Who
03-28-2015, 10:49 PM
I think the problem becomes how far do you take the multiple party system? Do you limit it to 4 or 5? Do you simply let the parties split off as long as a significant ideological difference is present? Do you continue to let them split uncontrollably? Do you set a predetermined number of votes in which a party would need in order to stay active? I'm not sure what the right number of parties on the spectrum is.

Some would say the logical conclusion would be self government and working with others around you. The opposite end of the spectrum would be one party authoritarianism; we should probably get at least far from that.
I think four or five is probably optimal. More than that and you are ending up with single issue parties.

Bob
03-28-2015, 10:50 PM
I think we could start with electing a candidate for each state. Then, perhaps have regional elections and then national elections. I think we would have more of a chance of getting someone who really knew what the voters wanted and would have had the advantage of creating winning platform based on those wants. The voters would know that their vote really did matter.

Would you mind just letting the electoral college pick the president and leave the rest of us out of it?

Believe me, i can manage without going through the meat grinder called the selection process.

Dr. Who
03-28-2015, 10:53 PM
Duly noted, but iustia's point, and I agree, (if we're on the same wavelength) is that what we have now ain't working very well. For example, @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099), @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226), myself and others could sit around and shoot the breeze all day about many issues and agree on many if not most. Throw in the polar issues and sometimes we'd rather walk away than talk. If I'm wrong, correct me.
Undoubtedly true. Extreme issues separate people, but should extreme or polarizing issues dominate the conversation. Are they the most important issues or just the most emotionally compelling issues to people?

PolWatch
03-28-2015, 10:53 PM
If we tried the state and then regional candidates I suspect it would end up being very much like the electoral college system.

Mister D
03-28-2015, 10:56 PM
We should perhaps be asking, in the spirit of the OP, if this liberal mechanism of party politics has resulted in something beneficial for the majority of citizens. That seems doubtful considering the dismay so often expressed on this forum.

Guerilla
03-28-2015, 11:11 PM
I think four or five is probably optimal. More than that and you are ending up with single issue parties.

I don't see how limiting it to 4 or 5 parties would stop corruption or misrepresentation. How would a two party system really be changed that much by a couple more parties?

If people are that concerned about single issues, who are we to tell them those issues aren't valid enough for another party?

The people that aren't concerned with single issues can vote for the live and let live parties.

Dr. Who
03-28-2015, 11:16 PM
I don't see how limiting it to 4 or 5 parties would stop corruption or misrepresentation. How would a two party system really be changed that much by a couple more parties?

If people are that concerned about single issues, who are we to tell them those issues aren't valid enough for another party?

The people that aren't concerned with single issues can vote for the live and let live parties.
Corruption and misrepresentation occurs when politicians are more concerned with getting elected than about representing their constituents.

Redrose
03-28-2015, 11:19 PM
We need political parties so we can get a fairly good idea what a candidate believes in.

It is not a fool proof method though. Barack Obama ran as a Dem. In reality he was much further left than that. If he had ran as a Socialist or whatever, he most likely would not have won.

Political parties are a necessary evil. The Congress is made up of a major party and a minor party. Without that identity, the balance of powers would be compromised.

I would like to see the campaign funding and contribution rules changed. They shouldn't be able to buy an election by outspending the competition. No foreign contributions allowed. Everyone vetted thoroughly, period.

Lobbyists need to be reeled in. There is too much "bargaining money" floating around our politicians to secure their vote. It breeds corruption.

And now my pipe dream....I would like to see the media report fairly, not biased partisan reports.

Mister D
03-28-2015, 11:19 PM
Corruption and misrepresentation occurs when politicians are more concerned with getting elected than about representing their constituents.

Which is characteristic of virtually every liberal democracy. So back to the OP: why do we retain it?

Dr. Who
03-28-2015, 11:22 PM
Which is characteristic of virtually every liberal democracy. So back to the OP: why do we retain it?
Probably because any kind of dictatorship is an even worse option.

zelmo1234
03-29-2015, 02:16 AM
I always thought that the best way to elect our leaders was to have them apply in essay form

Stating not only what they want to accomplish, but how they are going to do it, how much it will cost and the expected results

No face, name, skin color or gender, just a list of what they are going to do.

Vote for what you like the best and then you get to meet the person for the first time when they win.

Common
03-29-2015, 02:24 AM
Question for all, Do any of you think this anti everything period where in is a Obama phenomena and do you think much of it is driven by disdain for obama.

My Opinion:
The two party system will be here when your all buried. Its not the two party system that drives the country its the big money. We, us little people have nothing to say. What big money wants is the direction Politics takes us. Obama isnt playing ball exactly how the rich guys want. They are spending in the billions in the last 6 yrs to buy elections and keep it their way. Much of this will calm down when obama is out of office.

donttread
03-29-2015, 07:26 AM
Our third parties should use the Internet to broadcast their own debates. They may go viral and change the system. But they need to be smart about it and put on a quality production.

Exactly, we can take the money out of politics

zelmo1234
03-29-2015, 07:32 AM
Question for all, Do any of you think this anti everything period where in is a Obama phenomena and do you think much of it is driven by disdain for obama.

My Opinion:
The two party system will be here when your all buried. Its not the two party system that drives the country its the big money. We, us little people have nothing to say. What big money wants is the direction Politics takes us. Obama isnt playing ball exactly how the rich guys want. They are spending in the billions in the last 6 yrs to buy elections and keep it their way. Much of this will calm down when obama is out of office.

First it is the Chicken or the Egg story all over again.

I do not believe that the vast majority of the people distain Obama, they don't like his policies.

Look back to the Carter years, the feeling in the country was nearly the same. Sure there are a few racist butt holes that don't like the President for that reason, but the vast majority oppose his terrible and failed policies.

Add to that the fact that this President Hate the US system and tries to avoid using the Constitutional path of passing legislation and you can see that he has brought most of this upon himself

Mister D
03-29-2015, 08:49 AM
Probably because any kind of dictatorship is an even worse option.

It's not a choice between dictatorship or party politics.