A world without parties

[gumOnShoe]

Not drinking parties, calm down and take a deep breath

I am talking about political parties. George Washington was very against political parties, and they often just stalmate eachother into doing nothing. Should we abandon the party system which can never truly represent an individual?

[Hentai-Jeff]

I don't know, parties are good and bad at the same time. they narrow the canadates down so it's easier to choose but at the same time they fuck everything up for everyone. I think that the green party needs to show more activity because right now a 3rd party would maybe even things out

[seventy-one]

The good thing about the party system, is that there's debate, so that both sides of the issues are shown, however that does lead to much debate and stall the process, I would rather have things thought out and debated over, than things rushing through the system.

[RavenMist]

Parties just confuse the hell out of me. I mean in B.C. we have the Liberials, NDP and Green Party. And Federally we have Conservitives, Liberials and the NDP

The BC Liberals are as far right wing as the federal conservitives
the BC NDP is close to the center as the federal Liberials
and the BC Green Party is as far left as the federal NDP

So confuses the hell out of me, but i mange to keep some of it straight in my head.

[0wnage-Incarnate]

At 8/17/05 01:13 AM, seventy-one wrote: The good thing about the party system, is that there's debate, so that both sides of the issues are shown, however that does lead to much debate and stall the process, I would rather have things thought out and debated over, than things rushing through the system.

BOTH sides? So all the important political issues have only two sides? Even if they did, there are a lot of issues the two parties in the US don't even get into. If Kerry had been elected, would Kenneth Lay be anywhere else?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the two parties are increasingly corrupt and, despite a handful of issues which demagogues on TV mislead us into getting excited about, are becoming more similar as they become more polarized.

[seventy-one]

At 8/17/05 01:27 AM, 0wnage_Incarnate wrote: BOTH sides? So all the important political issues have only two sides? Even if they did, there are a lot of issues the two parties in the US don't even get into. If Kerry had been elected, would Kenneth Lay be anywhere else?

I shouldn't have said both, but the more parties, the more perspectives on issues you get. Although the downside, again, is stalling, but I guess three parties is efficent enough. Although I could be wrong on that one.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/17/05 01:01 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Should we abandon the party system which can never truly represent an individual?

That's a nice thought. It would be nice if everyone cast their vote for the candidate who best represents their views.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible. People will always consider the ability of a candidate to be elected. People will ally themselves with candidates and groups of candidates and create defacto parties, to help get the candidate that is more likely to be elected out of those that best matches their views.

[BALLBAGHITLER]

At 8/17/05 01:01 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Should we abandon the party system which can never truly represent an individual?

Probably. But if the major political leaders don't read this topic, it won't happen.
Unless some 1337 h4xx0rzrzxz teh whitehouse computers and says, "AM STOP POLITICAL PARTIES 'CAUSE Y0U SUCK!11 LOLOL. EDN."

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/17/05 02:10 AM, BALLBAGHITLER wrote:

At 8/17/05 01:01 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Should we abandon the party system which can never truly represent an individual?

Probably. But if the major political leaders don't read this topic, it won't happen.
Unless some 1337 h4xx0rzrzxz teh whitehouse computers and says, "AM STOP POLITICAL PARTIES 'CAUSE Y0U SUCK!11 LOLOL. EDN."

Very little discourse on this forum will ever amount to any political change. That's not why this forum is here; it's to discuss these topics and debate them, even if only theoretically--not to use as a gathering place for political movements.

[LegendaryLukus]

I think the grass might look greener from our side to you. I personally don't see anything wrong with the party system. It allows people to put some power behind their own particular views.

If we had no parties, then I don't see how we could have anything but an autocratic government. What would be the point of elections? To put in a different man with only slightly different views? No I don't think you've thought it through

[gumOnShoe]

If a man or woman is strong enough for a job, has the right credentials they should be able to pull a majority of the population to their cause without a party backing them if none others exist. A party could be formed for their election, but it would be terminated afterwards so that it does not get in the way of mediation. The current bi-partisan politics only attack each other and seek the thwart each other in things that might benifit the population they are meant to serve. They do this so that the other party won't recieve "kudos" for doing something great.

[LuckFarmer]

The system is good its the people behind it I have trouble with.

[gumOnShoe]

At 8/18/05 12:23 AM, LuckFarmer wrote: The system is good its the people behind it I have trouble with.

then the system isn't good. The people are what makes the system, the system is what lets the people in. How can a system be good if it doesn't work?

[BigBlueBalls]

At 8/17/05 01:25 AM, RavenMist wrote: Parties just confuse the hell out of me. I mean in B.C. we have the Liberials, NDP and Green Party. And Federally we have Conservitives, Liberials and the NDP

Yes and in Quebec it's the Liberals, Parti Quebecois and ADQ.

Most other provinces it's just the Liberals, Conservatives and the NDP. It's just Quebec and B.C., the Conservatives there are all but wiped out. Even the Marijuana Party gets more votes than the Conservatives in B.C.

I don't mind the party system, I just don't like the U.S. system where you got two jackasses to choose from. It's better when I have a third or fourth jackass that isn't as bad as the other two to balance things out. Unlike the U.S. when you vote for a third party, you might as well just crumple up your ballot and stick it up your ass. The third party in the U.S. I hear doesn't even show up on all the ballots, like that's really fair. I'd rather a third party that gets at least 20% of the vote, then they can be the deciding factor sometimes in the House of Commons.

[SEXY-FETUS]

without parties candidates would have no funding, with no funding we wouldn't know about them or at least we wouldn't know anything about them, and without any of that we wouldn't be able to make informed decissions of our candidates. Yes it makes it hard for an individual to come with different ideas, but also a president should be for the people and someone who is too individualistic can't represent the people as well as a hardliner we can predict.

[gumOnShoe]

At 8/18/05 12:31 AM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: without parties candidates would have no funding, with no funding we wouldn't know about them or at least we wouldn't know anything about them, and without any of that we wouldn't be able to make informed decissions of our candidates. Yes it makes it hard for an individual to come with different ideas, but also a president should be for the people and someone who is too individualistic can't represent the people as well as a hardliner we can predict.

In the world that we have today I would not be surprised if someone could run a campain on the internet. If it was set up right there would be ways of getting acknowledged. And if you have proven yourself worthy in other areas of local office you can get enough support from you area to start a campaign. The rest would just role from there

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 8/18/05 12:38 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 8/18/05 12:31 AM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: without parties candidates would have no funding, with no funding we wouldn't know about them or at least we wouldn't know anything about them, and without any of that we wouldn't be able to make informed decissions of our candidates. Yes it makes it hard for an individual to come with different ideas, but also a president should be for the people and someone who is too individualistic can't represent the people as well as a hardliner we can predict.

In the world that we have today I would not be surprised if someone could run a campain on the internet. If it was set up right there would be ways of getting acknowledged. And if you have proven yourself worthy in other areas of local office you can get enough support from you area to start a campaign. The rest would just role from there

but that would be virtually impossible. Without highly experienced people on payroll to watch out for smear campaigns you wouldn't be able to counter as quickly wich may seem like its not a big deal, but if the voters have it in there minds that something is wrong with you long enough it will stick with them even if you prove all claims false, thats part of human nature. And thats just one small reason why you need ALOT of money to run for president theres a thousand more but it would take forever to describe them all

[Lucky-Mabey]

The problem is is that parties usually show themselves as the most extreemest of each set of veiws the Republicans are to conservative and the Democrats to Liberal for the average Joe to relate entirely to eather of them.

[ReiperX]

Parties would form back up, its not a legal thing where there has to be parties. But people with similar views are going to group together, which is what the party is, now in order for most of your views to stay in power, you may have to do a few things that you may not like, but it keeps your now party in power and it keeps most of your views on the floor. Now since you are now in groups once again, might as well name those groups, hmm here is a name Democrats and Republicans. Now in reality there are many more than just 2 parties, but only 2 parties are in power because they are generally the less extremists, and are what your average people are going to want, and they become the most influential and kinda kick the other parties to the curb.

[Jimsween]

If we didn't have parties people would find different ways to be dumb. At least now we have people telling them what to think so they are all collectively dumb instead of individually dumb on different levels.

[Redbob86]

parties have divided this country far too much. But even if we got rid of the parties, they would eventually come back as something else. All it takes is for a group of people that share the same ideals and want a certain kind of person to win election, and then the party would just come right back.

George Washington would lose if he ran today, BTW. He had bad wigs, slaves, wooden teeth, if he ran today Ralph Nader would kick his ass.

[CartesianDiver38]

dont be fascist its not a good thing if u have two parties then theres more competition and you can have people believe different things. if theres only one political party then everybody has to believe the same thing which will never ever work

[Drah]

well, im actualy living in denmark, so perhaps i have no actual knowledge on this subject and should be quiet.
but it seems to me that if there was no parties there would be alot of anarchy, but if there were more parties the system would move at a far to low speed.
so i say the politicians stop their secret-y keping stuff and give the public more power over what they do, because right now its mainly the politicians deciding the peoples fate after theyve been elected.
so, what im saying is that they should tell the public more things and ask them more about their opinions, that might even encourage people to vote (more).

[Redwrath]

Someday when you don't care about the candidate, just vote for the liberal or conservative (depending on your alignment) independent. That way you can slowly change the system.

[CartesianDiver38]

how would that change the system in any way