Multiple Parties vs No Parties - General

More than 2 parties doesn't work well unless you have a parliamentary system where number of votes=number of seats in parliament. Having more parties in the presidential race just means a candidate can win while representing the beliefs of a smaller subset of the country. With two parties, the candidate that wins is the candidate supported by the majority of voters, with multiple parties you could have a situation where a president who only a small percentage of the country actually supports gets elected.

[QUOTE=jeimizu;35800651]More than 2 parties doesn't work well unless you have a parliamentary system where number of votes=number of seats in parliament. Having more parties in the presidential race just means a candidate can win while representing the beliefs of a smaller subset of the country. With two parties, the candidate that wins is the candidate supported by the majority of voters, with multiple parties you could have a situation where a president who only a small percentage of the country actually supports gets elected.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. There have been times smaller parties throw their support behind another, larger party's candidate. When it comes to the presidential election, all parties don't [I]have[/I] to put up their own candidate.

[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] They would probably be shocked that we consider women citizens, and even let them vote.

George Washington himself warned against political parties. Sure, it mabye took many many years for it to be come a large enough problem for people to realize it, but now that they have it's likely that more parties will form. Ideally, no parties would be best. However, that's protected under the Bill of Rights, so no dice.

[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] Pretty much what he said.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35797922]You either didn't read a damn thing I wrote or you're incredibly ignorant.[/QUOTE] Well since you're not even going to try and understand a point made by the other guy, let me make it a bit clearer. The goal of government was not to be almost non-existant, it was to protect individual rights, if you want absolute freedom then go back to nature. To this end, the government seems to be doing better than it did centuries ago despite your paranoid fears. In fact government intervention in public programs are what allow many people to live as they please in whatever profession or lifestyle they wish, rather than being stuck on a farm their entire lives or lynched for being gay. Despite Libertarian bullshit, it is possible that the government can help in some ways. And of course, you have no sense of perspective. The NDAA seems terrible but in practice will almost never be used, when you have the President based off Roman Dictators I think they would understand. The Federal government must adapt to the needs of the people rather than sticking to dogmatic ideals, it played out in the Louisiana purchase for fucks sake. Things must change and if they don't recognise the country, maybe it's because they're from the 18th century. [QUOTE=jeimizu;35800651]More than 2 parties doesn't work well unless you have a parliamentary system where number of votes=number of seats in parliament. Having more parties in the presidential race just means a candidate can win while representing the beliefs of a smaller subset of the country. With two parties, the candidate that wins is the candidate supported by the majority of voters, with multiple parties you could have a situation where a president who only a small percentage of the country actually supports gets elected.[/QUOTE] For Executive sure, you do have a Legislative branch though. It's all solved by the simple matter of a PREFERENTIAL SYSTEM. There's a CGPGrey video somewhere I'm sure but basically you put down who you vote for, and who you would vote for if not them. It means that if you do not get enough support for 50% for one candidate, the smallest one has their votes split exactly as the people want it split. Of course that really isn't the only problem with the American system and any new parties will fall into the same traps as the old ones. It's just a shame that first-past-the-post bullshit homogenised the landscape so much.

We could get better representation if we abolished the electoral college, removed gerrymandering, and stopped piggybacks in law formation.

[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] That's because ancient greeks were horribly authoritarian. And had strict direct democracy (shard judgment for instance) but this strict direct democracy was only for the ""citizens"of the city. I guess they'd be happier in the south during the slavery era.

Multiple parties simply because it'd take too much time for the average voter to figure out what one single candidate represents. It's easier to split people up into different groups, so like one candidate is a Democrat so you know he's liberal and the other guy is the conservative Republican. You don't have to dig much deeper than that to figure out how they're going to vote in Congress.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;35829021]That's because ancient greeks were horribly authoritarian. And had strict direct democracy (shard judgment for instance) but this strict direct democracy was only for the ""citizens"of the city. I guess they'd be happier in the south during the slavery era.[/QUOTE] Not all Ancient Greeks were democrats. Even Athens 'the birthplace of Democracy' was oligarchic at several times in its history. One of the most successful poleis Sparta was a mix of Oligarchy, Democracy and Monarchy. Oligarchs who lived in Ancient Greece wouldn't mind living in America nor any other modern democracy because it is effectively elective oligarchy. So long as the oligarchs were elected they would have little problem with it. Not all Greeks were authoritarian either, there were progressive Greeks and supremacists much like modern society. It is only when you study the period properly that you realise that things are not as simple as the stereotypes make out.

[QUOTE=Mythman;35834382]Not all Ancient Greeks were democrats. Even Athens 'the birthplace of Democracy' was oligarchic at several times in its history. One of the most successful poleis Sparta was a mix of Oligarchy, Democracy and Monarchy. Oligarchs who lived in Ancient Greece wouldn't mind living in America nor any other modern democracy because it is effectively elective oligarchy. So long as the oligarchs were elected they would have little problem with it. Not all Greeks were authoritarian either, there were progressive Greeks and supremacists much like modern society. It is only when you study the period properly that you realise that things are not as simple as the stereotypes make out.[/QUOTE] Even Rome elected a dictator in times of trouble, but I don't think that quite still means "democracy" in the sense that we know it today.

[QUOTE=Mythman;35834382]Not all Ancient Greeks were democrats. Even Athens 'the birthplace of Democracy' was oligarchic at several times in its history. One of the most successful poleis Sparta was a mix of Oligarchy, Democracy and Monarchy. Oligarchs who lived in Ancient Greece wouldn't mind living in America nor any other modern democracy because it is effectively elective oligarchy. So long as the oligarchs were elected they would have little problem with it. Not all Greeks were authoritarian either, there were progressive Greeks and supremacists much like modern society. It is only when you study the period properly that you realise that things are not as simple as the stereotypes make out.[/QUOTE] For fucks sake, it's not Elective Oligarchy. Oligarchy implies there is a class distinction and some kind of power beyond what their position's duties entail them. The Plutocratic influence from the wealthiest is the only kind of Oligarchy in the current system. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35835297]Even Rome elected a dictator in times of trouble, but I don't think that quite still means "democracy" in the sense that we know it today.[/QUOTE] Speaking of Rome and back onto the thread topic, even in the Aristocratic Republic of Rome, political parties such as the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimates]Optimates[/url] formed. Political alliances are inevitable, it's how they are dealt with that is the key issue.

I think the problem is not the existence of parties, but the fact that people show blind faith to them. Most people just choose the party they agree the most with, and vote for everything they say. People should think for themselves, and the main purpose of parties should be explaining their views to others, in hopes of changing their minds.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;35836718]I think the problem is not the existence of parties, but the fact that people show blind faith to them. Most people just choose the party they agree the most with, and vote for everything they say. People should think for themselves, and the main purpose of parties should be explaining their views to others, in hopes of changing their minds.[/QUOTE] The main problem I think with blindly following parties is, not all party members completely go with the party platform. The platform may say XYZ while the person you just voted for in that party may only like X and Y. So instead of voting for the individual that agrees to your view most, you vote for someone with a brand name that may or may not agree with your views most.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;35835782]For fucks sake, it's not Elective Oligarchy. Oligarchy implies there is a class distinction and some kind of power beyond what their position's duties entail them. The Plutocratic influence from the wealthiest is the only kind of Oligarchy in the current system.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say it if it were not true. Oligarchy = Rule of the few. Olig(os) = The few and Archy = Govern/ruled. Trust me, I study this stuff. We elect the few (our representatives) to rule over us; an elective Oligarchy. So stop getting angry - elective oligarchy is a perfectly fine term to use. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35838400]The main problem I think with blindly following parties is, not all party members completely go with the party platform. The platform may say XYZ while the person you just voted for in that party may only like X and Y. So instead of voting for the individual that agrees to your view most, you vote for someone with a brand name that may or may not agree with your views most.[/QUOTE] The main problem is that the wider the party base you have, the wider the views it is trying to represent. This is what causes problems since even a party line can be widely different to the views of its members. Part of the reason for political apathy is the belief that 'your party' does not represent your views due to this wide base. The wider the base the smaller amount of shared values you have with the rest of the party members. (That isn't particularly worded clearly; I will try and rephrase it later).

[QUOTE=Mythman;35839318]I wouldn't say it if it were not true. Oligarchy = Rule of the few. Olig(os) = The few and Archy = Govern/ruled. Trust me, I study this stuff. We elect the few (our representatives) to rule over us; an elective Oligarchy. So stop getting angry - elective oligarchy is a perfectly fine term to use.[/QUOTE] Then the term is useless because anything except a full anarchic direct democracy is Oligarchic. Distinctions have to be made somewhere. We elect Representatives not to rule over us but to represent us in government administration and policy. They have little power beyond their position and their job is not to rule but to carry out our wishes in our stead. They are not Oligarchs.

[QUOTE=Mythman;35839318] The main problem is that the wider the party base you have, the wider the views it is trying to represent. This is what causes problems since even a party line can be widely different to the views of its members. Part of the reason for political apathy is the belief that 'your party' does not represent your views due to this wide base. The wider the base the smaller amount of shared values you have with the rest of the party members. (That isn't particularly worded clearly; I will try and rephrase it later).[/QUOTE] I got what you mean. And I think what you said will be an inevitable problem due to the variety of things representatives and the president have to deal with. For example, if you have a party that is solely for supporting social rights, and that's what you're for and they get elected - well, they still have to deal with economic affairs and foreign affairs, etc. So the party that was built to support social rights [I]has[/I] to come up with platforms for those things as well. And what they come up with may not be that great.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35842926]I got what you mean. And I think what you said will be an inevitable problem due to the variety of things representatives and the president have to deal with. For example, if you have a party that is solely for supporting social rights, and that's what you're for and they get elected - well, they still have to deal with economic affairs and foreign affairs, etc. So the party that was built to support social rights [I]has[/I] to come up with platforms for those things as well. And what they come up with may not be that great.[/QUOTE] With the multitude of combinations for policy on every different issue, it is impossible to gain a perfect representation. Even if you had a lot of minor parties, you will just end up like Israel's Knesset with backroom political dealings to form a coalition dominating policy with minor parties inevitably having more power than larger parties. The best way to solve it is to have a few parties but maintain their status as a conduit for the voters rather than an institution in themselves. The Labor party here in Australia was against gay marriage initially, realised it was an issue, listened to their voters and changed their policy regardless of the party leader's opinions. A single vote is not enough to transmit a full political agenda, that is where these town hall meetings shouldn't just be publicity stunts.

The lack of enough parties isn't the most basic problem with representation in this country. The only reason that you see a lot more "honest" candidates being independent is because all the career politicians were smart enough to grab on a winning ticket. If we get more parties, we'll have the same assholes, different name. Representative democracy will always have a disconnect between the voter and the representative. It's a broken system that has been used since it's inception to protect the capitalist class.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;35844029]With the multitude of combinations for policy on every different issue, it is impossible to gain a perfect representation. Even if you had a lot of minor parties, you will just end up like Israel's Knesset with backroom political dealings to form a coalition dominating policy with minor parties inevitably having more power than larger parties. The best way to solve it is to have a few parties but maintain their status as a conduit for the voters rather than an institution in themselves. The Labor party here in Australia was against gay marriage initially, realised it was an issue, listened to their voters and changed their policy regardless of the party leader's opinions. A single vote is not enough to transmit a full political agenda, that is where these town hall meetings shouldn't just be publicity stunts.[/QUOTE] Makes me almost want to move to Australia [editline]5th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=prooboo;35844159]The lack of enough parties isn't the most basic problem with representation in this country. The only reason that you see a lot more "honest" candidates being independent is because all the career politicians were smart enough to grab on a winning ticket. If we get more parties, we'll have the same assholes, different name. Representative democracy will always have a disconnect between the voter and the representative. It's a broken system that has been used since it's inception to protect the capitalist class.[/QUOTE] I don't think so. More parties mean more competition. Parties would have to try harder for more votes. Right now, the US is mostly decided by an extremely small margin of independent voters. A good 85-90% of voters always vote "the party line" regardless. It's that 10-15% of independents that actually sway elections. Making more parties would break those "party line" guys up a bit. Also, there is no such thing as a "capitalist class".

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35844206]I don't think so. More parties mean more competition. Parties would have to try harder for more votes. Right now, the US is mostly decided by an extremely small margin of independent voters. A good 85-90% of voters always vote "the party line" regardless. It's that 10-15% of independents that actually sway elections. Making more parties would break those "party line" guys up a bit. Also, there is no such thing as a "capitalist class".[/QUOTE] Independents are no longer independent when they become mainstream. If they become mainstream there would be a migration of corruption to those parties as they become a viable campaign decision. The real solution here is campaign finance reform, get rid of fucking "Super PACs" and institute term limits. The capitalist class is literally those who own the means of production and benefit from their usage. There is the capitalist class, the middle class, and the working class.

[QUOTE=prooboo;35844463]Independents are no longer independent when they become mainstream. If they become mainstream there would be a migration of corruption to those parties as they become a viable campaign decision. The real solution here is campaign finance reform, get rid of fucking "Super PACs" and institute term limits. The capitalist class is literally those who own the means of production and benefit from their usage. There is the capitalist class, the middle class, and the working class.[/QUOTE] I think you took the opposite of what I meant. What I'm saying is, more parties will break the "party liners" into more independents because there will be more options for them to vote for. I think you mean the bourgeoisie class.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35844479]I think you took the opposite of what I meant. What I'm saying is, more parties will break the "party liners" into more independents because there will be more options for them to vote for. I think you mean the bourgeoisie class.[/QUOTE] There'd have to be a dozen parties for that to work. Then they'd just form a liberal coalition and a conservative coalition and we'd be back to 2 parties. Same thing.

[QUOTE=prooboo;35844501]There'd have to be a dozen parties for that to work. Then they'd just form a liberal coalition and a conservative coalition and we'd be back to 2 parties. Same thing.[/QUOTE] I think that's too generalized. Would depend on what parties form, really.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;35841813]Then the term is useless because anything except a full anarchic direct democracy is Oligarchic. Distinctions have to be made somewhere. We elect Representatives not to rule over us but to represent us in government administration and policy. They have little power beyond their position and their job is not to rule but to carry out our wishes in our stead. They are not Oligarchs.[/QUOTE] It was just my way of describing it in the context of this debate. Since the parties themselves have the power then surely it is best to have as many parties as possible for plurality. We elect representatives not delegates. We entrust them to make judgements on our behalf but they are not bound to act according to our views. Once they are elected they are free to act as they like within the constitutional bounds. That is why representatives are allowed to vote with the party line instead of the constituent view, why they do not have to ask the electorate their opinion at every vote and why they are able to make unpopular decisions. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35842926]I got what you mean. And I think what you said will be an inevitable problem due to the variety of things representatives and the president have to deal with. For example, if you have a party that is solely for supporting social rights, and that's what you're for and they get elected - well, they still have to deal with economic affairs and foreign affairs, etc. So the party that was built to support social rights [I]has[/I] to come up with platforms for those things as well. And what they come up with may not be that great.[/QUOTE] That is the problem with parties with such a large base. Due to having a large base and having to cover a large range of issues, the supporters feel alienated from 'their party'. The supporters only support a small % of the parties policies but disagree with the rest.

Oh joy, I get to use those terms I learned in that Comparative Politics class I took. Political parties are interest groups (these would be things like PACs, EFF, MPAA, NRA and others), but different in one way. The only difference is that political parties get elected in public elections... And interest groups get appointed to various positions in government anyway. More to the point, political parties aren't bad, it's just that people tend to identify with the group instead of the people IN the group, when that group might have people ranging from A to Z.

Problem with our current voting system is it inevitably leads to only two parties. And only two parties can't really represent all the people. I think a mixed proportional method of assigning seats would work much better.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;35860013]More to the point, political parties aren't bad, it's just that people tend to identify with the group instead of the people IN the group, when that group might have people ranging from A to Z.[/QUOTE] There's your problem. People need to be more individualistic and see things beyond party lines more often... but how? [QUOTE=thelurker1234;35867529]Problem with our current voting system is it inevitably leads to only two parties. And only two parties can't really represent all the people. [B]I think a mixed proportional method of assigning seats would work much better.[/B][/QUOTE] Explain.

I'd be for it if we could make it work. A lot of the shitflinging, IMO, is caused by an Us VS Them attitude on Capitol Hill. Politicians seem to think they should be working to defeat the other party, not voting on things that make sense for the common public, and I think removing the parties would go a loooong way towards curbing the constant battling going on. Multiple parties would accomplish it but to a lesser degree. You'd end up with the parties infighting again but it won't be quite as severe and it will be easier to get things through. So Idunno.

i think that the best idea would be a 10-15 party system or even a no-party system. At this point in time i feel that it would alienate a lot of voters and confuse them. A 10-15 party would eventually make the public a lot more open to a no-party systems. If a lot of voters got confused then there would be less people voting and less people could figure it out, limiting the power people have over the country.