Do we really need Reps and Dems?

[ICKEEE]

i dont think we really need those two parties. I still dont know why people constantly cling to their "party" and always vote for them no matter what. I truly think that america would be more democratic if everyone wasn't aligned to a party. But unfortunetly it will never happen.

It is nessesary to have a Republican and a Democratic part or any party at all?

Discuss

[BAWLS]

At 12/10/04 09:54 PM, ICKEEE wrote: It is nessesary to have a Republican and a Democratic part or any party at all?

Parties are helpful in helping you decide which canidates follow your views. Without them, we'd have to research every person running for every office and evaluate them.

But because of the two party system the U.S. has, however, people can disagree significantly, if not completly, with someone from within their own party.

My suggestion? Break the parties up into smaller groups so that their members share a more concrete set of beliefs (while not completely indifferent from each other), as they do in Europe.

[CountPoopoo]

I think parties play too much of an important role in today's politics. The problem is, even if parties are eliminated, people will still feel the need to label the opposition.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/10/04 09:54 PM, ICKEEE wrote:

I think it's important to have party labels. That way I know who I'm supposed to vote for.

[TheShrike]

The question shouldn't be 'Do we need Reps and Dems?', but rather... 'Why don't we have a stronger third party?'

[JoS]

At 12/10/04 11:37 PM, TheShrike wrote: The question shouldn't be 'Do we need Reps and Dems?', but rather... 'Why don't we have a stronger third party?'

Yeah, what ever happend to the fedearlist party?

[TheShrike]

At 12/10/04 11:38 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Yeah, what ever happend to the fedearlist party?

Or the Libertarians.

I voted Dem this past year, being one of the "Anyone but Bush" crowd. Next round, I'm going to push third party candidates in my community and state. Two flavors wasn't enough for Baskin Robins, so why do Americans settle for so little choice in the most important aspects of the nation's inner workings?

[BAWLS]

At 12/10/04 11:37 PM, TheShrike wrote: The question shouldn't be 'Do we need Reps and Dems?', but rather... 'Why don't we have a stronger third party?'

Because the current third party's are too radical for the general public.

[Ravens-Grin]

Oh this reminds me that I should throw my english essay into this little topic so here it goes:

Democracy can be a great thing, or at least for the majority. Even if this majority is barely a majority. In the last couple elections, the nation has continually been polarized into 2 different parties. Luckily, this constant strain on the nation has been counteracted by many wars and potential wars. America has stayed united through the Cold War, the conflicts with Iraq over the 90’s, and 9/11. One day, these external uniting factors will not be there, and there will be a huge dividing event. When this occurs, the populace will be divided if there isn’t some action today to eliminate the factors that are polarizing the nation. One way to eliminate this would be limiting the power of the political parties by altering the voting system. The power would be more in the hands of the people. They would not be bound to choose between 2 candidates that might not reflect their views.
If you look closely at the 2 political parties, you can tell that inside each of them there are 3 different kinds of people; a moderate, conservative, and a liberal. A conservative Democrat and a liberal Republican are practically the same, so in reality there are 5 different political factions, formed into 2 different groups. In an election, you are often downsized into selecting 2 out of the 5 possible political factions. Often the choice is easy, stay with the party that you’ve been selecting. They have some of your beliefs in comparison with the other party, so why not?
You can easily see from the last election why this is not plausible. The nation will be divided after every single election. Like a rubber band that is constantly stretched to its breaking point in back, it becomes brittle. In order for the nation to survive, these polarizing factors must be eliminated. Madison originally wrote about factions and possible ways to get rid of them in the Federalist Papers. One was to eliminate the factions completely through force. Another way was to limit the effects of the factions (Madison). This last way is the way that I am going about.
Let’s go into a hypothetical situation. How about we have 2 main candidates, Candidate A and Candidate B, both are a part of two separate, large parties. Also, we have Candidate C on the side. Now Candidate A and B are completely different from each other. People that support Candidate A severely hate Candidate B and vice versa. So 50% of the nation would then severely hate Candidate A, and 45% would hate Candidate B. Candidate C is a middle ground, both groups would easily accept him as head of an office, although they would rather have their candidate in office. In today’s voting system, putting a vote towards Candidate C, an independent, would be wasting your vote. He would never have a chance because of too many straight-ballot votes. To say that it is a flaw in the system would be ludicrous. It is more of a flaw in humans. We want to see what we support succeed, even if it means that we ignore some negative aspects of our choices.
So how do we fix this mess? Easy, change the system to adapt to the environment it has been put in. The voting systems for this are endless. There is the Instant-Runoff Voting System. In this system you will never waste your vote. Basically it is run in rounds, if your first choice did not get enough votes to get into the second round, your second choice for a candidate will become your vote. This would happen until a candidate reaches a majority. This by far is the most successful one that would limit the polarity factors after an election because it allows the freedom of voting for third parties. This preferential voting system, the Instant Runoff Voting System, is not anything new either. It has been in use for over 80 years in Australia (Carr)! To say that this system would not work would just be plain stupid and irrational.
The nation needs to cleanse itself. Old ways need to change to better benefit society. Voices need to be louder and not be carried behind two lethargic beasts. It’s time to step up and unite America. It will not last any longer in constant cycles of tension caused by the two-sided elections.

Eh, I could've done better on it. I did it late at night and crunched a lot of stuff in.

[JoS]

My eyes hurt from lack of paragraphs and teh fact it is all in bold. I got to the elastic part and my eye burst.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/11/04 12:29 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: My eyes hurt from lack of paragraphs and teh fact it is all in bold. I got to the elastic part and my eye burst.

I would normally disagree that the US will have anything other than the two party system, but right now the democratic party is split between democratic modertates and kooks like the folks at democraticunderground and Moveon.org.

The fact that Howard Dean may become DNC chair, and the letter that Moveon.org sent to the Democratic party is an omen of the times to come. I would not be the least bit surprised if the democratic party splits in two. One will make up the moderate voter bloc, and the other will be the weirdo Michael Moore crowd. I especially expect this to happen if Bush has a great four years. The only reason the party was so united this election is because democrats viewed Bush as a failure.

So we may be looking at a three party system very soon, but that's just bad news for democrats and good news for republicans. The reason republicans became a major force to begin with was because of a split in the democratic party over slavery. A split in the democratic party now would just lead to more huge victories for the GOP.

[Ravens-Grin]

At 12/11/04 12:29 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: My eyes hurt from lack of paragraphs and teh fact it is all in bold. I got to the elastic part and my eye burst.

It was copied and pasted straight from a word document, I thought the tabs would carry over from it, but it did not.

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/10/04 10:08 PM, NotYouZ wrote:

At 12/10/04 09:54 PM, ICKEEE wrote: It is nessesary to have a Republican and a Democratic part or any party at all?

Parties are helpful in helping you decide which canidates follow your views. Without them, we'd have to research every person running for every office and evaluate them.

And that would require *gasp* THE COMMON MAN TO GIVE A SHIT ABOUT POLITICS!!! OH, THE HORROR!!! THE HORROR!!!!

The party system seems to be a way of keeping people from having options, and forcing them to elect candidates that both parties agree on, as opposed to the most qualified choice.

And remember, kids, a no-party system is ALWAYS a defacto one-party system.

At 12/11/04 12:48 AM, Rooster349 wrote:

A split in the democratic party now would just lead to more huge victories for the GOP.

From your mouth to god’s ears, baby.

[BAWLS]

At 12/11/04 12:48 AM, Rooster349 wrote: A split in the democratic party now would just lead to more huge victories for the GOP.

There are such huge differences within the parties that it could go either way, maybe even both ways.

[Maus]

At 12/11/04 12:48 AM, Rooster349 wrote: A split in the democratic party now would just lead to more huge victories for the GOP.

Or a lot of centrist Republicans would be inclined to break from the wacko right.

[Doran]

At 12/10/04 09:54 PM, ICKEEE wrote: It is nessesary to have a Republican and a Democratic part or any party at all?

Well, our first president warned against political partisanship in his farewell address. Nevertheless, two major political parties representing two distinctly different ideologies appeared shortly after his presidency. Then, the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" during which the Federalist party died out, leaving only the Republican party. With only one party, political factions appeared and quickly enough, so did two major political parties (National Republicans and Democratic Republicans). So do we need political parties? No, but they will exist anyway.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/11/04 01:17 PM, Maus wrote:

At 12/11/04 12:48 AM, Rooster349 wrote: A split in the democratic party now would just lead to more huge victories for the GOP.

Or a lot of centrist Republicans would be inclined to break from the wacko right.

That's true. Ross Perot is proof of that.

Fuckin Ross Perot...

[TheShrike]

At 12/11/04 01:17 PM, Maus wrote: Or a lot of centrist Republicans would be inclined to break from the wacko right.

I was thinking the same thing. There are a fair number of Republicans who only choose to vote that way because of the RNC's economics package. My mother and her parents, for example.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/11/04 01:32 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 12/11/04 01:17 PM, Maus wrote: Or a lot of centrist Republicans would be inclined to break from the wacko right.

I was thinking the same thing. There are a fair number of Republicans who only choose to vote that way because of the RNC's economics package. My mother and her parents, for example.

You know that 25 percent of the population is libertarian? They just don't know it and vote for whatever is more important to them (ie. social issues, liberal votes/economic issues, conservative votes).

I read it in the Diamondback, which is the UMD school newspaper. It doesn't surprise me.

[TheShrike]

At 12/11/04 01:34 PM, Rooster349 wrote: It doesn't surprise me.

Me, either.

Actually, I'd be surprised if it were only just 25%, and not more.

[TheShrike]

blah. meaning to say I'm not surprised that they would say that, but I'd be surprised if it was really such as small fraction...

blah.

[BeFell]

Having two strong parties means that a lot of compromise is forced. The republicans are in control of both houses and the presidency but it is obvious that they are not getting to do everything they would like to do. I like the way the nation is split now because being so evenly divided between two parties means that neither can become two powerful because in the next election it would only take a few to swing it away.

Third parties also play an important role in our current system because they bring new issues to the table. Although a third party can never win they can be quite a spoiler which is extremely powerful. If a party sees a good number of their base drifting twoards a third party because of one issue then they will usually pick up that issue and make it a key part of their platform. In this way even though third parties don't win they still play a large role in deciding what happens.

[RedSkunk]

Befeel is the new jmhx-establishment-whore.

[BAWLS]

At 12/11/04 01:54 PM, BeFell wrote:

You have to realize that republicans in congress don't always vote the same way, niether do democrats. It's not as simple as two ideologies against each other.

[BeFell]

At 12/11/04 02:07 PM, NotYouZ wrote:

At 12/11/04 01:54 PM, BeFell wrote:

You have to realize that republicans in congress don't always vote the same way, niether do democrats. It's not as simple as two ideologies against each other.

I didn't say it was, I said two major parties force comprimise. Are you disagreeing with me? If a republican votes a little more liberal to please his constituents is that not a compromise?

[BAWLS]

At 12/11/04 02:09 PM, BeFell wrote: I didn't say it was, I said two major parties force comprimise. Are you disagreeing with me? If a republican votes a little more liberal to please his constituents is that not a compromise?

Sometimes it is. Or he could be voting for what he believes in anyway. A social libertarian and economic conservative will vote for social policies that are generally attributed to democrats, while at the same time voting for republican economics. He votes for some 'democratic' legislation because he agrees with it.

And comprimise isn't voting more liberal, it's changing the legislation to please more people.

[TheShrike]

At 12/11/04 02:07 PM, NotYouZ wrote: You have to realize that republicans in congress don't always vote the same way, niether do democrats. It's not as simple as two ideologies against each other.

Which brings about my original point:

Why don't we have a stronger third party?

Befell touches upon some interesting points...

At 12/11/04 01:54 PM, BeFell wrote: Having two strong parties means that a lot of compromise is forced.

The current climate (and I'm talking about the past 50 years in American politics) breeds compromise, but wouldn't a strong third party also further cooperative efforts?

Third parties also play an important role in our current system because they bring new issues to the table.

And the more powerful parties scramble to make them non-issues if it doesn't suit their interests.

Although a third party can never win they can be quite a spoiler which is extremely powerful.

But it does no good. No one wants to feel like they wasted their vote.

If a party sees a good number of their base drifting twoards a third party because of one issue then they will usually pick up that issue and make it a key part of their platform.

And who is more suited to taking on the issue? The party who wanted to push it through? Or would it be the one who added it to the platform in an attempt to keep the flock together? Is it better to follow the leader who alligned to you, or the one who alligns himself to keep you close by?

[MoralLibertarian]

I agree with Befell when he says that the primary purpose of third parties is to put new issues on the table and generate higher interest in politics to the general public.

I think the two party system is so engrained in our current political system that we're not going to work our way out of it. The only way that a successful third party will be introduced is a split in one of the major parties is if the government and corporations sponsor third parties (as we know, corporations are the largest contributors to political parties).

If you're a wing-nut like me that's not necessarily a bad thing. Moral of the story: Be a wing-nut.

[BeFell]

At 12/11/04 02:25 PM, TheShrike wrote: Befell touches upon some interesting points...

At 12/11/04 01:54 PM, BeFell wrote: Having two strong parties means that a lot of compromise is forced.

The current climate (and I'm talking about the past 50 years in American politics) breeds compromise, but wouldn't a strong third party also further cooperative efforts?

No a third party would split up people of the same ideoligies so the other side would win every time.

Third parties also play an important role in our current system because they bring new issues to the table.

And the more powerful parties scramble to make them non-issues if it doesn't suit their interests.

Didn't Perot run on balancing the budget? It did get balanced.

Although a third party can never win they can be quite a spoiler which is extremely powerful.

But it does no good. No one wants to feel like they wasted their vote.

It sends a clear message and I guarantee that someone would change something to get you back in the next election.

If a party sees a good number of their base drifting twoards a third party because of one issue then they will usually pick up that issue and make it a key part of their platform.

And who is more suited to taking on the issue? The party who wanted to push it through? Or would it be the one who added it to the platform in an attempt to keep the flock together? Is it better to follow the leader who alligned to you, or the one who alligns himself to keep you close by?

Who is better for the country, a party that is centralized around a single issue or many?