Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/16/04 08:00 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: Parties are a good way for poeple to 'roughly guess' at a politican's platform

Oh, you mean it's a good way to be a lazy bastard and vote for the party candidate? Can you honestly say that John Kerry is a Democrat after reading his political stances? All they have to do is lie.

Without parties, voter turnout would plummet, and the entire electoral process would be dominated by the rich and the well-known.

Or maybe people would actually research candidates before voting on them, and take initiative on who they elect. After all, how much MORE can voter turnout plummet?

At 4/16/04 10:43 PM, JudgeSKVNK wrote:

Or maybe people would actually research candidates before voting on them, and take initiative on who they elect. After all, how much MORE can voter turnout plummet?

yeah, but it would eliminate a lot of people from running for public office...Bill Clinton couldn't have run without the backing of the democratic party, he needed their support to raise money etc...Bush on the other hand incredibly rich anyways so...

At 4/16/04 10:43 PM, JudgeSKVNK wrote: Oh, you mean it's a good way to be a lazy bastard and vote for the party candidate?

Yes. Whatever you want to call it. Lazy. Uninterested. Whatever.

The fact of the matter is is that not everyone is the least bit interested in national politics.

Can you honestly say that John Kerry is a Democrat after reading his political stances? All they have to do is lie.

Sure. But the party should keep them in line. Parties in America are weak. In a country where they're stronger, they would make sure that their candidates follow their platform.

Or maybe people would actually research candidates before voting on them, and take initiative on who they elect. After all, how much MORE can voter turnout plummet?

A lot more. In the '96 presidential race, turnout was a bit below 50%. First time ever, as far as I know.

In other countries, that kind of turnout would invalidate the election. Our turnout is akin to some third world countries. People wouldn't bother researching candidates in a party-less system - they wouldn't bother, because they would know who they'd be voting for - the rich, the celebrity, the famous general.

At 4/17/04 03:21 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: The fact of the matter is is that not everyone is the least bit interested in national politics.

The fact of the matter is, is that many people aren't the least bit interested in national politics.

You enjoy repeating yourself? It's interesting how our history tells of our forefathers fighting for a say in parliament (and with the amount of people living in the U.S. colonies at the time, wouldn't have meant anything...maybe we would have gotten 1 or 2 representatives)

So perhaps people have forgotten the importance of expressing their ideology through politicians, or maybe they feel politicians no longer adequetly express their views. In any case, I have neither the sagacity or the tenacious nature to question others fickle ways. It is easy to express an opinion, but far more arduous to impress that idea upon someone.

the only solution I know is to attack the root of this problem...the lack of education

At 4/17/04 11:52 PM, MadMax501 wrote: the only solution I know is to attack the root of this problem...the lack of education

Preach it, brotha! Education is the key to solving most of our problems facing us, not the least being political apathy.

At 4/18/04 12:54 AM, Jlop985 wrote: Preach it, brotha! Education is the key to solving most of our problems facing us, not the least being political apathy.

POINT 3!!!!! This thread is REALLY on a roll tonight, eh? One party system, voting priviledges only for the "educated", and mandatory state funded "education".

It's almost too good!

At 4/18/04 11:02 AM, JudgeSKVNK wrote:
POINT 3!!!!! This thread is REALLY on a roll tonight, eh? One party system, voting priviledges only for the "educated", and mandatory state funded "education".

It's almost too good!

actually, I don't believe that a one party system would solve our problems, and nor would giving voting rights only to the educated. We already have mandatory state funded educations, but what I want is nationally funded schools...

At 4/18/04 01:44 PM, MadMax501 wrote: actually, I don't believe that a one party system would solve our problems, and nor would giving voting rights only to the educated. We already have mandatory state funded educations, but what I want is nationally funded schools...

What's the difference between a one party system and a no party one?

Ans: THERE ISN'T ONE! No matter what, politically active people with always congregate. Therefore in a "no" party system, what you really have is a secret one party system. And I think we can all agree that partisan politics (just as George Washington told us they would) have ruined this country (how the hell else did you think Bush got elected? HE HAD THE PARTY TICKET.

And let's face it, would we rather have stupid people AND intelligent people vote, where the idiots could possibly elect the wrong candidate, or only the intelligent people vote, thus giving us the best choice in leadership. Everyone having the right to vote sounds good in principle, but lets face it, do we REALLY want the idiots that work at Mcdonalds choosing the leader of the free world?

Nationally or Federally, it all amounts to the same thing. The government is telling our children what to think. Now, if this is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, this is not a problem.

*leads into point four*

So, how efficiently do you guys think our commitee on 9-11 is working? Hasn't it been THREE YEARS with no real answers?

Umm I forget who made the topic before but it was one on voting systems... I reckon america would benift from that other voteing system... ya know the one that has all the partys on it and you vote favorite from least favorite. 5 begin your favroite

Democrate ----- 5
Facist party ----- 1
Green party ----- 4
Libertarian ----- 2
Repblican ----- 3

And that party gets that number of votes... this way the whole thing would be alot fairer Casue the vote wouldn't be split between the partys and one wouldn't be obligated to vote one way or another... that and it would make voter purges alot more difficult to... thingey...

Yeah I'm not really with it today but you get my general view...

I think most people can find a niche in either of our fine parties. Their are some more outsiders like that Ralf Nader guy, but i mean, most are such a minority that they have a hard time getting media coverage and even if they did they really wouldn't be able to do much. Eh, it works for me. although i would like to change the democratic symbol to a giant middle finger.

I agree Funk.

A one party system would prove beneficial overall.

And with a 1 party system, there would be no need for an actual vote.

Inter-party democracy. If you're willing, and able, you'd be able to rise through the ranks of the party.

I kind of outlined this before, a long time ago.

A one-party system, like, say, the Soviet Union, or China, or Nazi Germany? One-party states are known to crush dissent, and even in tamer one- party states like Mexico and Japan, the people have less of a say.

At 4/18/04 06:20 PM, Jlop985 wrote: A one-party system, like, say, the Soviet Union, or China, or Nazi Germany? One-party states are known to crush dissent, and even in tamer one- party states like Mexico and Japan, the people have less of a say.

Eliminating all parties is one of the first steps a totalitarian government makes....what I'm argueing in this topic for is choice, and our political condition now doesn't suite me!

you're forgetting the main issue here. The corruptness of a multiparty system stems from interparty competition. Agendas are denied soley for the purpose of defacing another party, and pressed only to please vocal minorities who take advantage of the fractured power structure.

In a one party system, there is no real power in being corrupt. Decisions are not made soley for public relations, rather, they are made for the purpose they should be made: for the good of the people.

I wish we could adopt this from Russia and have "None of the Above" on the ballot. Funding the other parties would be a nice second.

At 4/19/04 08:00 PM, JudgeSKVNK wrote: you're forgetting the main issue here. The corruptness of a multiparty system stems from interparty competition. Agendas are denied soley for the purpose of defacing another party, and pressed only to please vocal minorities who take advantage of the fractured power structure.

In a one party system, there is no real power in being corrupt. Decisions are not made soley for public relations, rather, they are made for the purpose they should be made: for the good of the people.

how can you gaurentee the decisions are being made for the good of the people when only one political view is being represented?

At 4/19/04 08:00 PM, JudgeSKVNK wrote: you're forgetting the main issue here. The corruptness of a multiparty system stems from interparty competition. Agendas are denied soley for the purpose of defacing another party, and pressed only to please vocal minorities who take advantage of the fractured power structure.

In a one party system, there is no real power in being corrupt. Decisions are not made soley for public relations, rather, they are made for the purpose they should be made: for the good of the people.

The situation is exactly the opposite. Because in a multi-party system parties compete, that minimizes corruption, because news of corruption can hurt a party's chances of winning. the US has relatively low corruption. In one-party states, elections are non-competitive, so officials can do whatever they want, and often become corrupt, as was seen in the former communist states of eastern Europe and the USSR.

At 4/19/04 09:50 PM, Jlop985 wrote: The situation is exactly the opposite. Because in a multi-party system parties compete, that minimizes corruption, because news of corruption can hurt a party's chances of winning.

Then please explain to me why Bill Clinton was impeached. He did absolutley nothing illegal as President. He was simply trying to keep his private sex life private. However, he was impeached for this. Are you trying to tell me that wasn't orchestrated by the opposition party purely for the purpose of currying favor to the religious minority?

the US has relatively low corruption. In one-party states, elections are non-competitive, so officials can do whatever they want, and often become corrupt, as was seen in the former communist states of eastern Europe and the USSR.

Not all one party systems use the CCCP as a model. There is still a rigorous process for the determining political candidates. However, it concerns education and reputation as judged by the politically saavy, as opposed to as judged by Joe Constructionworker. Politicians don't tell masons how to lay bricks. Why should masons be allowed to tell politicians how to run a country?

Can you honestly say that Ronald Reagan (AN ACTOR!) or George W. Bush (AN ALCOHOLIC EX-COCAINE ADDICT!) had the most experience for the job? Obviously the two party system is failing us.

At 4/20/04 01:10 AM, JudgeSKVNK wrote: Then please explain to me why Bill Clinton was impeached. He did absolutley nothing illegal as President.

He lied under oath. Even so, this is not corruption, only partisan politics. Such actions help limit the concentration of power (something Madison wanted to happen).

Not all one party systems use the CCCP as a model. There is still a rigorous process for the determining political candidates. However, it concerns education and reputation as judged by the politically saavy, as opposed to as judged by Joe Constructionworker. Politicians don't tell masons how to lay bricks. Why should masons be allowed to tell politicians how to run a country?

Masons, and every other citizen, has to tell the politicians how to run the country, because their decisions affect all of us, and because they represent us. Whatever a mason does only affects the mason and his customer. Politicians' decisions may be life-or-death choices.

Can you honestly say that Ronald Reagan (AN ACTOR!) or George W. Bush (AN ALCOHOLIC EX-COCAINE ADDICT!) had the most experience for the job? Obviously the two party system is failing us.

The two-party system is succeeding. These were the people that the American public wanted to be in office (ok, maybe not Bush). I should correct myself, though. We are getting by with the two-part system, but what we need is more parties, to increase the diversity of views and opinions in government. Reagan, who had less political experience than say, the average Senator, still knew what the people wanted. Managing the inner works of government is up to the bureaucracy; the bureaucrats do need to be well-qualified. To actually set policy, however, one only needs to know what policy it is he wants to implement, and the popular support to do so. Reagan was a pretty successful president, causing the end of the Cold War.

there are not people trained in colleges to be politicians...a politician is just a member of a community who decides they can fairly represent the people (or we hope that's why they run)

all people need to express their needs through the officials they elect, because whatever action the government takes affects them. I think right now, a lot of people aren't voting because they feel like neither democrats nor republicans represent their best interests.