I can only speak in terms for America in this, as I really don't know very well the government systems of other nations.
What is the purpose of political parties anymore? In today's world, most people will "side" with a party, and retain a horrific loyalty to it for better or for worse.
When people go to vote at elections, they don't care about who they're voting for, the vote for the party. They have an odd assumption that every single person in that party stands for exactly what the party stands for.
Would it not be better to get rid of "political parties" all together? This would force voters to actually need to look at the specific and individual beliefs of those they vote for, instead of for who they think they stand for.
Politicians are as independent and different from each other as everyone else is. Each have their own political ideology and beliefs. Those who "mostly" have the same beliefs form a party, for which they have set standards for. Eventually, the same beliefs that brought these people together become "the beliefs" of the party, and overshadow everything else and all the differences the individual members support.
What if you vote for a Democrat, because he's a Democrat, who you think will share your belief in pro-choice, but once that politician gets into office, they continuously vote for pro-life?
What if you vote for a Republican, because he's a Republican, who you think will share your belief of war in Iraq, but once that politician gets into office, they continuously vote for withdraw?
What does your representatives truly stand for? Are they, in reality, just going under the party name for a free elected job? A political position is better as a paying job for the rich than an actual position to pass legislation to help the masses, anymore these days.
[QUOTE]However [political parties] 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.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796[/QUOTE]
:911:
you can't really ban parties, that would infringe on freedom of speech. you just have to hope the people will be smart enough on their own.
in other words, never gonna happen.
[QUOTE=Mexican;23767673]you can't really ban parties, that would infringe on freedom of speech. you just have to hope the people will be smart enough on their own.
in other words, never gonna happen.[/QUOTE]
More like freedom to assemble, technically, and no, I would never want to infringe on anyone's rights, but surely there are more benefits in a nation with no parties than one with them?
Partisan Democracy is a sham,
Some form of direct democracy would be the ideal.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23767642]Would it not be better to get rid of "political parties" all together?[/QUOTE]
Yes. But you can't actually do that.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;23767718]Partisan Democracy is a sham,
Some form of direct democracy would be the ideal.[/QUOTE]
You would have a tyranny of the majority then. A republic is much better.
Well generally, parties are formed of people with similar ideas so more than likely, you're partie's candidate will have ideas in your favor which is why people will vote for that party member no matter what.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23767704]More like freedom to assemble, technically, and no, I would never want to infringe on anyone's rights, but surely there are more benefits in a nation with no parties than one with them?[/QUOTE]
You can't do that.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;23767751]Well generally, parties are formed of people with similar ideas so more than likely, you're partie's candidate will have ideas in your favor which is why people will vote for that party member no matter what.[/QUOTE]
Will [I]most likely[/I] have the same ideas. There are liberal Republicans as much as there are conservative Democrats.
What I'm saying is that when voting for a politician, his personal views should be looked into, rather than what party he affiliates with.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23767769]You can't do that.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say I could, nor that it will happen.
I am only arguing that a nation, any nation, is better with out them than with them.
[QUOTE=Mexican;23767673]you can't really ban parties, that would infringe on freedom of speech. you just have to hope the people will be smart enough on their own.
in other words, never gonna happen.[/QUOTE]
This. And we can't give tests to vote, so we have to rely on the average american to do their own studying
[QUOTE=crackberry;23767917]This. And we can't give tests to vote, so we have to rely on the average american to do their own studying[/QUOTE]
Would it be best at least to pass around the idea that it's better to vote for the person instead of the party?
One party system all the way.
It really all boils down to politicians lying about their beliefs.
I.E. Arnie. Called the Dems "Womenmen" and now is one himself.
This is why I'm an independent.
[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;23768245]This is why I'm an independent.[/QUOTE]
As am I. But sadly, there aren't many independents running for office.
Most politicians feed on the "party image" than talk about what they actually are personally for.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23767987]Would it be best at least to pass around the idea that it's better to vote for the person instead of the party?[/QUOTE]
Why yes, yes it would
Partisian politics exists for funding reasons, and simplicity. It would be (even) more akin to an oligarchy if candidates had to fund themselves, and the masses would vote for whichever person had the better advertising campaign without parties. Imagine if "swing voters" were the only factor in politics. Party loyalty is a way to mitigate that.
It definitely isn't perfect, and leads to some shitty decisions, but I can't think of a better way. A lot of people aren't interested in politics, and they are certainly volatile.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;23767718]Partisan Democracy is a sham,
Some form of direct democracy would be the ideal.[/QUOTE]
The masses are easily misinformed, and are quite fickle.
Our Founding Fathers are probably trying to find a way to kill themselves in Heaven if they see an America run like this..
George Washington didn't like political parties. He said they would ruin America (which they seam to be doing)
My whole idea on it was assigning yourself to one party is stupid. Hell politics in general can be pretty stupid itself half of the time.
What was George Washington's great alternative suggestion?
[QUOTE=that1dude24;23768414]
The masses are easily misinformed, and are quite fickle.[/QUOTE]
That's a problem with all forms of democracy, not just direct.
[QUOTE=PariahKing;23769863]What was George Washington's great alternative suggestion?[/QUOTE]
That people should vote for the best candidate, not just the one running in their own party.
I'm down.
parties are here to stay, deal with it.
We should've listened to George Washington. He knew what he was doing.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;23770289]That people should vote for the best candidate, not just the one running in their own party.[/QUOTE]
The only way I can imagine that happening is if the voting ballet just had an empty box that you put a name in.
Parties are just similar platforms that allow individual politicians to group together under common causes and have enough influence in the government to actually get stuff done. Without parties no one in federal or local government would have enough power and voters backing them.
Party in the USA came into my head when I saw the title.
Edit: I am gonna get my umbrella gaybow storm is coming!
[QUOTE=Warhol;23770587]parties are here to stay, deal with it.[/QUOTE]
I refuse to just "accept" our horrid political systems of today.
Deal with it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.