Political Parties

William H Bonney
09-29-2003, 03:32 PM
Pretty simple. Should we get rid of Politicial Parties, i.e. Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, etc.?

BMRBruins
09-29-2003, 03:34 PM
Pretty simple. Should we get rid of Politicial Parties, i.e. Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, etc.?
What do you have in mind as an alternative?

William H Bonney
09-29-2003, 03:34 PM
I think we should. Even though I am a registered Republican, I think politcal parties only hurt a country. I for one, believe the best politician would be a blend of most of the political parties, which isn't allowed in our current state.

William H Bonney
09-29-2003, 03:38 PM
What do you have in mind as an alternative?

No political parties. You run based on your values, beliefs, and goals for your candidacy and not on the basis of your party.

dempsey_k*
09-29-2003, 03:39 PM
I think federalizing the political parties in the sense where there's a system of checks and balances within the party so that only a quality politician can get through to the top instead of someone from a dynasty or someone who's a ******.

John McCain should have been the republican pick. Al Gore should have been killed just like Chandra Levy. He knew too much for his own good.

pavel13
09-29-2003, 05:55 PM
What good would it do to get rid of political parties?

Unholy Diver
09-29-2003, 06:04 PM
yeah lets get rid of them so we can get a good ole fashioned dictator in office

William H Bonney
09-29-2003, 08:18 PM
yeah lets get rid of them so we can get a good ole fashioned dictator in office

Isn't that a little bit extreme?

William H Bonney
09-29-2003, 08:20 PM
What good would it do to get rid of political parties?

So candidates start running based on their values and ideas for office rather than by the fact that they're Republican or Democratic.

mrhockey123
09-29-2003, 08:33 PM
I dont think you CAN get rid of political parties. Look at the electoral process and you'll see why. I dont completely understand how delegate selection works, but the party members vote for delegates, those delegates allign themselves with leaders and thereby get themselves elected. If you take that microcosm and look at it in Macro, you'll see that you can not take the party out without completely blowing up the system.

Suppose you outlaw parties, how would the system work? so me and joe get elected to the house of commons or house of reps (canada or US) then what? either a bunch of us will agree to vote the same way, or we will get our butts kicked. Even Survivor illustrates that people instinctively form into small groups within a bigger one.

I dont think theres no way to do this

XX
09-29-2003, 09:21 PM
I dont think theres no way to do this

Absolute Monarchy.... :D

Like you said, they will all just form little groups. Its instinct, your voting on my side so lets combine together to do some good.

No, I propose we kill off the rivalry, the public blasting of presidents by the opposing party.

Nalyd Psycho
09-29-2003, 09:42 PM
Well the Canadian system is built around parties, but in America it could theoretically work. But the American system was built with the idea of there being no political parties and buy like the second round of elections they'd formed. It would be more of a pain than it's worth to do it. Hitting the reset button on parties would be great though.

Safir*
09-30-2003, 01:11 AM
Pretty simple. Should we get rid of Politicial Parties, i.e. Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, etc.?

No that's not the right way at all.

GB
09-30-2003, 01:58 AM
No. I see two main problems. Firstly you'd be banning people from assembling with like minded (in terms of political view) people, which seems quite extreme. Secondly, as mentioned, members/representatives would instinctively band together, which is how parties formed in the first place.

Liam

Frolov 6'3
09-30-2003, 05:58 AM
Pretty simple. We should get rid of religious convictions because that's hurting the world but that's another topic.

Belgian Fan
09-30-2003, 06:09 AM
I think we should. Even though I am a registered Republican, I think politcal parties only hurt a country. I for one, believe the best politician would be a blend of most of the political parties, which isn't allowed in our current state.

Ideas like this were common gorund in Europe in the thirties.

The idea was that political parties, and there way of politicising everything were detrimental to the efforts to undermine the economical/political crisis wich was sweeping through Europe in those days of the interbellum.
Drastic measures were necessary, everyone knew that and yet thos political parties were putting their own ideology and interests before the 'common good'.
That's why many people started feeling that the time of the parlementary democracies was over. That the governements should have more decision power for themselves, without the politicised parlement having to do much to make the measures of the governement become effective. Some even had the idea that a governement would be inadequate to confront the crisis and that the more power should be given to one single man, who would than be able to decide for the "good of all people".
Unfortunately, we know what those ideas led to.

Fact is, that the political system in most democracies woud simple fall in to chaos when there were no political parties. I'l give a few examples here.

The voting proces would become even more of a 'celebrity-popularity contest than it is already. Candidates would solely rely on their own image to persuade the voters, rather than on the backing of a party. This idea may seem appealing, but is pretty dangerous IMO. There will be no longer any guarantees about the ideas of the person in question, there will be no consistency required etc. etc.
So in short, the one with the nicest face and the loudest voice would have even more advantages then he has nowadays. Individualism in all it's glory and dangers...

A second system wich would be turned into chaos is the control of the parlement on the governement, and the support of the parlement required to enact legislation. Our society is so filled up with Law and regullations these days, and the need for more legislation is getting bigger every day. (this is most obvious in Europe, but the tendencies are there already in the US too).
So having a parlement where there are no parties, would lead to incertain majorities, and therefor to problems getting legislation enacted.
I know that the pressure on individual members is not as big in the US as it is in Europe (especially in the House, as a result of the short time the representatives are there- they're on campaign almost constantly) and that is a good thing. But imagine the control of parties being removed completely... there would be no easy majorities anymore, and the whole system would suffer immensly.

The parliamentary democracy without strict control by political parties has worked though in the past. For instance in Belgium from 1830 (independance) to 1846. The governement had to work with 'floating majorities' and it was a pretty good system. But it wouldn't work nowadays, due to the sheer volume of legislation the parlements have to enact during their tenure.

So in short, I think political parties are a necessary evil. I don't like them too much either, but I think the idea of going back to the situation before the parties is not realistic.
It's a nice romantic sounding idea, removing all politicising and blabbering caused by the parties, but it would no longer work in the modern day democracy IMO.


(sorry to make you read through al this people)

HABitual
09-30-2003, 06:21 AM
Isn't that a little bit extreme?

No. That is MOST extreme. That would be the ultimate result of having no political party.

pavel13
09-30-2003, 09:52 AM
So candidates start running based on their values and ideas for office rather than by the fact that they're Republican or Democratic.
The political parties aren't just two groups of people that were thrown together. They are parties for a reason. "Values and ideas for office" are exactly what separate the political parties. If I were to vote for a person, the deciding factors would be political, and political parties are made of political issues and people who share the same view in politics.

Something that strikes me as odd: You say you are a registered Republican, but you favor getting rid of pol parties? Republicans are probably more against getting rid of the parties (especially the two-party system) than any other group. So why are you a reg. rep.? That just seems strange to me.

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 10:07 AM
So why are you a reg. rep.? That just seems strange to me.

You're from Arkansas and you're saying that ? That's strange to me. Unless you're one of those southern democrats *shudders*

pavel13
09-30-2003, 11:32 AM
You're from Arkansas and you're saying that ? That's strange to me. Unless you're one of those southern democrats *shudders*
What does it matter that I'm from Arkansas? I'm a socialist, and an atheist, and I bare little/no resemblance to the stereotypical Arkansan.

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 11:38 AM
What does it matter that I'm from Arkansas?

You shouldn't find republicans or joining the rep. party weird if you're from Arkansas.

I'm a socialist

Oh, you must find a lot things weird then. Like gravity, and logic.

Just kidding. Kind of.

pavel13
09-30-2003, 11:48 AM
You shouldn't find republicans or joining the rep. party weird if you're from Arkansas.



Oh, you must find a lot things weird then. Like gravity, and logic.

Just kidding. Kind of.
What I thought was strange is that he is against having political parties yet he is part of one (the more conservative one, which is more likely to not want to get rid of parties). I didn't think it was weird that he was a registered Republican, but that he was a reg. rep. and against having political parties. It seems almost hypocritical to me, actually, but it depends on why he is a reg. rep., so I asked him.

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 12:03 PM
What I thought was strange is that he is against having political parties yet he is part of one (the more conservative one, which is more likely to not want to get rid of parties). I didn't think it was weird that he was a registered Republican, but that he was a reg. rep. and against having political parties. It seems almost hypocritical to me, actually, but it depends on why he is a reg. rep., so I asked him.

Well he's a teenager if that helps you any.

And I would have thought that a shift away from parties, or new legitimate parties would spell the doom more of the democratic party when african-americans and latinos figure out they're being taken for a ride by the Jack *****.