I have been thinking over the problems we face in today's politics and I believe I have come to a conclusion. Our Congress doesn't really represent the people. If they did, then we wouldn't be having constant bills such as SOPA, PIPA, and now CISPA launched at us. We wouldn't be in a position where if you disagree with both sides on an issue, you have to pick the one that offends you the least. Keep in mind however, the problem, from my perspective, is strictly national. In local politics here where I live, both parties bring valid points to the table and that is how people are attracted to them. They gain power locally and use it to do whatever they want nationally, leaving the actual will of the people behind. Therefore, I suggest what if the people were persuaded to leave their parties and declare themselves Independents or go and form their own parties.
You see, with two parties we have the problems we have now.
Only one party would exacerbate it even more.
I contend that multiple parties would lessen the negative impact.
I have little idea how a "no party" system would work. I would imagine a similar situation we are in now would arise, they just wouldn't be called "parties."
Theoretically, would our system work well and be more effective at passing efficient legslation if we had multiple parties of relatively equal strength or can someone come up with a system to completely neutralize the negative impact of parties?
More details on my viewpoint is that we need more Independents in Congress. The problem is, given the might of the two parties and our election system, this will prove to be very difficult. We can't count on the parties to shoot themselves in the foot and reform elections. (FPTP to Alternative Vote or better) so Independents will have to get into office and do it themselves. The multiple parties will come from Independents banding together to represent their own interests, not the lesser of two evils the parties we have now provide.
A no-party system I suspect would be run on the merits of the individual candidates instead of saying, "Hey, I'm part of this party so vote for me if you hate the other party".
But I think disassembling parties would be illegal under the right to assembly. The best way to get rid of parties is to vote in as many independents as possible. Though, most of the time independents tend to be just disenfranchised party goers who end up siding with the party that they disagreed with anyway.
What about the option of having more than two parties?
What if the US had 3 or 4 major parties? That would definitely dilute the power of Republicans and Democrats alike. Make them more competitive as well - and maybe, just maybe, more honest.
Multiple parties would be the best.
You can't get rid of parties. Unless you want to effectively limit our civil liberties. You can limit its negative effects by having a constitution and using representative democracy though.
The problem in the US? Bipartisanship.
When you have it split between two different ideologies like that, we get what we see today where it's just back and forth shitflinging. In 1776 there were far more than two parties taking a stance in the public forum.
If we could introduce a few more parties into the fray, we'd be back on track. But right now with only two parties, it's back and forth "Obama is a socialist trying to run the country into the ground" and the left-wing circlejerking you often see on facepunch ("all these republican candidates are fucking stupid grrrr")
[QUOTE=Protocol7;35770677]The problem in the US? Bipartisanship.
When you have it split between two different ideologies like that, we get what we see today where it's just back and forth shitflinging. In 1776 there were far more than two parties taking a stance in the public forum.
If we could introduce a few more parties into the fray, we'd be back on track. But right now with only two parties, it's back and forth "Obama is a socialist trying to run the country into the ground" and the left-wing circlejerking you often see on facepunch ("all these republican candidates are fucking stupid grrrr")[/QUOTE]
There weren't any parties in 1776, and what became known as "political parties" in the early days of the republic aren't the same in the sense of what a political party is today.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35770649]A no-party system I suspect would be run on the merits of the individual candidates instead of saying, "Hey, I'm part of this party so vote for me if you hate the other party".
But I think disassembling parties would be illegal under the right to assembly. The best way to get rid of parties is to vote in as many independents as possible. Though, most of the time independents tend to be just disenfranchised party goers who end up siding with the party that they disagreed with anyway.
What about the option of having more than two parties?
What if the US had 3 or 4 major parties? That would definitely dilute the power of Republicans and Democrats alike. Make them more competitive as well - and maybe, just maybe, more honest.[/QUOTE]
I would never condone forcibly disassembling the parties, though I suppose by this you mean the No Party option. What needs to be done is convince the people to leave their parties by declaring independence. That same convincing would make them more able to choose someone actually willing to represent them. Ideally I'd say instead of 3 or 4 major parties I would say 6 or 8.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35770777]There weren't any parties in 1776, and what became known as "political parties" in the early days of the republic aren't the same in the sense of what a political party is today.[/QUOTE]
There weren't any "political parties" but there were still groups of people with different opinions voicing their opinion on hot button issues.
Now I just hear opinions from "the left" and "the right".
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35770777]There weren't any parties in 1776, and what became known as "political parties" in the early days of the republic aren't the same in the sense of what a political party is today.[/QUOTE]
Nevertheless, by 1787 there was a wide variety of opinions regarding the new government. To me, people summing it up as simply Federalists vs Anti-Federalists is an example of the horribly broken yet accepted view of Black and White politics.
Even though i'm not really part of their audience, the Libertarian party gives me hope for breaking the two-party system.
George Washington warned us of this exact situation in his last speech in office.
Taken from the Wikipedia page of his Farewell Adress.
[QUOTE]Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole. His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton's Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in this portion of the address, was the Democratic-Republican efforts to align with France and the Federalist efforts to ally the nation with Great Britain in an ongoing conflict between the two European nations brought about by the French Revolution.
While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents.[11].
Moreover, Washington makes the case that "the alternate domination" of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and "is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." From Washington's perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and "gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual."[12]
Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.
[/QUOTE]
We're paying the price for not heeding his warning.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35770792]I would never condone forcibly disassembling the parties, though I suppose by this you mean the No Party option. What needs to be done is convince the people to leave their parties by declaring independence. That same convincing would make them more able to choose someone actually willing to represent them. Ideally I'd say instead of 3 or 4 major parties I would say 6 or 8.[/QUOTE]
Which I could rate this agree a hundred times.
When I hear a friend hasn't registered to vote, I usually offer to get them the application and everything - even mail it myself for them. And they [I]always[/I] every single time ask, "What party should I register for?"
And I have always told them to register independent because of how my state's primary system works. We have an open primary to where independents can vote in party primaries even though they're not affiliated. Democrats can't vote in the Republican one and Republicans can't vote in the Democrat one. BUT Independents can choose one of the primaries, declare which one, and vote in it for that year. I explain this to them that by registering independent, you're not restricted to one party or the other and you have more freedom of choice.
[editline]30th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=RagerTrader;35770832]Even though i'm not really part of their audience, the Libertarian party gives me hope for breaking the two-party system.[/QUOTE]
I can't find the source of where I read it, but I heard that LP may actually break out enough votes this year to be invited to the Presidential Debates this coming fall. Libertarian Party gives me hope because it's not like the other "third parties" that have came about every so often because of one single issue. Like the Dixiecrat party. It came and went. But the LP isn't coming up because of a single event, and I expect that once they get into the limelight to share with Democrats and Republicans, they'll be there to stay (though will probably be very small for a long time)
My state has closed Primaries and I still chose to be Unafilliated. I don't need people in one party telling me what to do and people in the other party judging me because of it.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35771009]My state has closed Primaries and I still chose to be Unafilliated. I don't need people in one party telling me what to do and people in the other party judging me because of it.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's the tool I use to sway people into going unaffiliated (which I never understood the name change for. Nothing wrong with "Independent"). It's a practical reason to not choose a political party but in a state with closed primaries, I'm not sure what the best argument would be.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35773189]Well, it's the tool I use to sway people into going unaffiliated (which I never understood the name change for. Nothing wrong with "Independent"). It's a practical reason to not choose a political party but in a state with closed primaries, I'm not sure what the best argument would be.[/QUOTE]
I think George Washington's argument would suffice. Already posted above.
I think the problem would be more about why we are electing members attached to political parties to act as representatives for areas, rather than how many political parties there are. Ideally, a representative should be making decisions based on what his or her electorate want, rather than those decisions being made based on alignments.
I've always wondered about how a kind of "national council" would work in a country; although representatives would stay yes, there would be a new level of government based on proportional voting which would be a national vote, then allow political parties in that. I don't know how that would work though.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;35773782]I think the problem would be more about why we are electing members attached to political parties to act as representatives for areas, rather than how many political parties there are. Ideally, a representative should be making decisions based on what his or her electorate want, rather than those decisions being made based on alignments.
I've always wondered about how a kind of "national council" would work in a country; although representatives would stay yes, there would be a new level of government based on proportional voting which would be a national vote, then allow political parties in that. I don't know how that would work though.[/QUOTE]
They do, through "pork spending". Since federal funding is a basic free-for-all for any that can get a hold of it, many representatives will tack on to bills minor spending projects for their home area. These things are completely federally funded with no cost at all to the local area and the representative can parade around how much he/she has done for the county during election season.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35770847]George Washington warned us of this exact situation in his last speech in office.
Taken from the Wikipedia page of his Farewell Adress.
We're paying the price for not heeding his warning.[/QUOTE]
The problem isn't with your parties but your political governing system in general. You're one of the rare examples of a presidential democracy and those don't work anywhere outside the US. And it has only worked in the US to some extend thanks to fairly broad political agendas and people often voting outside of their party in the house.
Essentially the problem with a presidential system is, that you often have the executive on one side of the spectrum and the legislative on the other.
And the tend to block each other from functioning correctly.
There's basically two ways to remedy this - a) Either have votes for the legislative and executive sections at the same time and give them mandates that are equally long.
b) Have the executive (the government essentially) be mandated from inside the legislative.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35770649]A no-party system I suspect would be run on the merits of the individual candidates instead of saying, "Hey, I'm part of this party so vote for me if you hate the other party".
But I think disassembling parties would be illegal under the right to assembly. The best way to get rid of parties is to vote in as many independents as possible. Though, most of the time independents tend to be just disenfranchised party goers who end up siding with the party that they disagreed with anyway.
What about the option of having more than two parties?
What if the US had 3 or 4 major parties? That would definitely dilute the power of Republicans and Democrats alike. Make them more competitive as well - and maybe, just maybe, more honest.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, you usually have a pseudo 2 party system anyway, divided into the left and right. And they tend to make opposing blocks. You sometimes have straggle parties which will side with anyone who has a chance of building a majority, but overall those two blocks tend to be fairly balanced.
The issue really is more based on blocking and counterblocking.
Ideally - No parties, we vote on the merits of the candidates.
Realistically - As many parties as possible, the more parties there are the more accurately politics represents the people's will.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35770777]There weren't any parties in 1776, and what became known as "political parties" in the early days of the republic aren't the same in the sense of what a political party is today.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? Federalists and anti-federalists. That was the birth of Republicans and Democrats.
Reading the posts on this thread makes me think most of you did not take US History or Government...
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;35770803]There weren't any "political parties" but there were still groups of people with different opinions voicing their opinion on hot button issues.
Now I just hear opinions from "the left" and "the right".[/QUOTE]
Its the SAME THING!
[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;35787408]Are you kidding me? Federalists and anti-federalists. That was the birth of Republicans and Democrats.
Reading the posts on this thread makes me think most of you did not take US History or Government...
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
Its the SAME THING![/QUOTE]
Um, no. For one, the Anti-Federalist Party evaporated after the Federalists won. The ancestor to the Democratic Party is Jefferson's Republican-Democratic Party. The ancestors of the Republicans are various small anti-slavery parties and the Whig Party. And they were not "parties" in today's sense with specific platforms and party conventions. They were more like a loose collection of people with the same mindset toward certain (not specific) things, in this case for federalism or not.
Did you take a US History class before?
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35770847]George Washington warned us of this exact situation in his last speech in office.
Taken from the Wikipedia page of his Farewell Adress.
We're paying the price for not heeding his warning.[/QUOTE]I bet Washington would be ashamed of the current state of the country. But, he'd probably also feel a sense of accomplishment for seeing the country he helped create turn into the superpower that it is today.
[QUOTE=Killer900;35788852]I bet Washington would be ashamed of the current state of the country. But, he'd probably also feel a sense of accomplishment for seeing the country he helped create turn into the superpower that it is today.[/QUOTE]
My World Cultures teacher (who is probably the smartest man I have ever met) said that the Ancient Greeks who lived under democracy would sooner commit mass suicide than live in America today.
[QUOTE=Killer900;35788852]I bet Washington would be ashamed of the current state of the country. But, he'd probably also feel a sense of accomplishment for seeing the country he helped create turn into the superpower that it is today.[/QUOTE]
No, he would be horribly ashamed.
America's goal was not "to be a superpower". The objective of America was to have limited government to which individuals can live their lives to the fullest in their own direction. Something of which we have failed, horribly at. We have entangling alliances, a bloated federal government, death of civil liberties through unconstitutional laws like the NDAA. Washington would not recognize this as his own country.
You'd have to rework the winner take all system and effectively completely overhaul the election process to have proportional representation
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;35789247]You'd have to rework the winner take all system and effectively completely overhaul the election process to have proportional representation[/QUOTE]
They already [attempt] to do that. Unless you mean for the presidential election?
Greater incentive to form more parties would be better, seeing as it would be hard to prevent people from forming parties
[editline]2nd May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35789072]No, he would be horribly ashamed.
America's goal was not "to be a superpower". The objective of America was to have limited government to which individuals can live their lives to the fullest in their own direction. Something of which we have failed, horribly at. We have entangling alliances, a bloated federal government, death of civil liberties through unconstitutional laws like the NDAA. Washington would not recognize this as his own country.[/QUOTE]
Evolution in government and the constitution is unavoidable, the original objective of America was just that but it definitely has shifted. You can attempt to bring it back but you are ignoring the difficulty the evolution of society, technology and economy has placed infront of doing just that
No Parties is not an option for the simple reason that it is impossible. The ones who band together from similar interests and mutual benefits will always trump the ones who operate on their own. Without outlawing it and forcing them underground, there is no way to stop them and Washington's comments there are irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35788900]My World Cultures teacher (who is probably the smartest man I have ever met) said that the Ancient Greeks who lived under democracy would sooner commit mass suicide than live in America today.[/QUOTE]
Mainly because they wouldn't be allowed slaves to do everything for them and they couldn't vote to go to war with whoever they wanted on a whim. We don't live in a city state of about 100,000 people before cutting out all slaves, women and non-citizens, deal with it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35789072]No, he would be horribly ashamed.
America's goal was not "to be a superpower". The objective of America was to have limited government to which individuals can live their lives to the fullest in their own direction. Something of which we have failed, horribly at. We have entangling alliances, a bloated federal government, death of civil liberties through unconstitutional laws like the NDAA. Washington would not recognize this as his own country.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, who cares about improvements since the 18th century. Democracy and Liberty spreading to most of the world, people of color voting, WOMEN voting, no slavery, social safety nets saving people from economic serfdom, common folk being literate, common folk given opportunity, common folk having a means to communicate and organise en masse, fuck all that.
All that matters is we have made alliances with other countries, invested more into collective projects and passed laws which will never be used. Liberty is our only Sovereign even if we don't know what either of those words mean. I mean Franklin said Liberty > Security so fuck every security measure ever regardless of what it did, it was obviously just constraining Liberty. Common sense and progression mean jack shit, FOUNDING FATHERS IDEALS 4EVER, STAGNATION, WHOO!
[QUOTE=Devodiere;35793728]
Yeah, who cares about improvements since the 18th century. Democracy and Liberty spreading to most of the world, people of color voting, WOMEN voting, no slavery, social safety nets saving people from economic serfdom, common folk being literate, common folk given opportunity, common folk having a means to communicate and organise en masse, fuck all that.
All that matters is we have made alliances with other countries, invested more into collective projects and passed laws which will never be used. Liberty is our only Sovereign even if we don't know what either of those words mean. I mean Franklin said Liberty > Security so fuck every security measure ever regardless of what it did, it was obviously just constraining Liberty. Common sense and progression mean jack shit, FOUNDING FATHERS IDEALS 4EVER, STAGNATION, WHOO![/QUOTE]
You either didn't read a damn thing I wrote or you're incredibly ignorant.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35788900]My World Cultures teacher (who is probably the smartest man I have ever met) said that the Ancient Greeks who lived under democracy would sooner commit mass suicide than live in America today.[/QUOTE]
Probably because they wouldn't be able to own slaves :v:
If there were considerable support for other parties/independents in the US I could see a lot of Republican/Democrat politians resigning the whip. From what I've seen a lot of them seem reluctant to toe the party line.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
