Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I want your all's opinion about having political parties or not. I say we shouldn't have parties and we should elect average joes, people that are smart and know what the people want not part of hot shot political parties, George Washington beleived that political parties would destroy America. I aint going to say America is falling apart I'll leave that for you to decide. Just think what political parties are doing they are making us choose sides. Think....

Im not sure I want an average joe running the country.

At 2/14/06 08:37 PM, Papa_Smuff wrote: Im not sure I want an average joe running the country.

no, but considering what we've been getting from our major parties . . .

At 2/14/06 08:39 PM, bakem0n0 wrote:

At 2/14/06 08:37 PM, Papa_Smuff wrote: Im not sure I want an average joe running the country.

no, but considering what we've been getting from our major parties . . .

I dont mean average joe. I mean smart and very good citizen that works hard and obeys the laws. Don't get me wrong Parties are good for some stuff like supporting the government and the person being elected, but they kind of change the person's ideas of things.

At 2/14/06 08:44 PM, Seanman wrote: I dont mean average joe. I mean smart and very good citizen that works hard and obeys the laws. Don't get me wrong Parties are good for some stuff like supporting the government and the person being elected, but they kind of change the person's ideas of things.

They really only change the ideas of sheep.

Political Parties are important to our government now.
They compete with each other not to fuck up, or they're toast.

At 2/14/06 08:44 PM, Seanman wrote:

At 2/14/06 08:39 PM, bakem0n0 wrote:

At 2/14/06 08:37 PM, Papa_Smuff wrote: Im not sure I want an average joe running the country.

no, but considering what we've been getting from our major parties . . .

I dont mean average joe. I mean smart and very good citizen that works hard and obeys the laws. Don't get me wrong Parties are good for some stuff like supporting the government and the person being elected, but they kind of change the person's ideas of things.

People who follow laws don't have money. People would end up being Reupublican or Democrat or w/e. You just wouldn't know it.

At 2/14/06 09:14 PM, Richthofen wrote: Political Parties are important to our government now.
They compete with each other not to fuck up, or they're toast.

But the only reason they are important is the competition. If one was removed, the other would seize power, but if all parties were removed, the compitition would be immaterial.

There would be even more competion. Because we could have like 10 opponents for president. And Citizen won't vote based off what party they are in so, people will listen to the Ideas of each candidate and vote for a better president.

At 2/14/06 09:27 PM, Seanman wrote: There would be even more competion. Because we could have like 10 opponents for president. And Citizen won't vote based off what party they are in so, people will listen to the Ideas of each candidate and vote for a better president.

But here's the problem: Democracy CANNOT function without political parties.

Why? Because there will always be different and opposing stances of opinions in any political issue, and Parties serve the purpose of being the support of those opinions. I'm not saying that the current parties are without their flaws, but it's really naive to believe that you can have a Democracy without Parties.

Two problems with this idea though:

1. A no-party system favors the last president in power (and other famous/already known political figures, such as the VP, key senators, governors, etc., but moreso the president). Thus, since more people know about the president than, say, Politically Capable Average Joe A living in Randomville, the president will inevitably get a majority votes more easily, and so would already important political figures, and people with more money than others.

2. Leading up from point #1, a president could become corrupt and intolerable by the majority of citizens, but because alternatives are few and scattered, the president could eventually be able to do away with a lot of things and face far lesser risk of being toppled by a vote. Thus, if a president does things slowly, he could manipulate his way into absolute power more easily, which goes against the doctrines that America is founded upon.

Are you calling George Washington dumb? If Democracy can not support it make another system that can. Not Communism or any thing like that but a whole new form were the people directly vote for laws and have more freedom.

As long as there are people who agree, there will be political parties. Heck, even if that weren't true, there would just be millions of political parties of one.

At 2/14/06 09:36 PM, AzureFenrir wrote: Two problems with this idea though:

1. A no-party system favors the last president in power (and other famous/already known political figures, such as the VP, key senators, governors, etc., but moreso the president). Thus, since more people know about the president than, say, Politically Capable Average Joe A living in Randomville, the president will inevitably get a majority votes more easily, and so would already important political figures, and people with more money than others.

2. Leading up from point #1, a president could become corrupt and intolerable by the majority of citizens, but because alternatives are few and scattered, the president could eventually be able to do away with a lot of things and face far lesser risk of being toppled by a vote. Thus, if a president does things slowly, he could manipulate his way into absolute power more easily, which goes against the doctrines that America is founded upon.

I don't see how either of these are different from what we now have. In fact, number 2 would be easier with political parties. One man can only hold office for 8 years. Thus the time allowed for manipulation is limited. Political parties can hold office indefinately. The conspiracy would have to be bigger, but it'd be much easier to pull off.

How bout I say this, there should be ONE BIG PRIMARY where, say...4 people are made as candidates. Also, if one wishes to say "I am running for election in the so ans so party... they should be under A TON of public scrutiny and shoud have to state ALL personal views in front of the comitee.

(No, I don't care about how all of this happens if it does. No, I do not care if you think candidates are lieing(SP?) That is what the fucking POLITITIONS are for.)

Oh, and if something like this does happen, I honestly hope none of you for a nazi.

Even if you wiped out the parties as they stand now, they would form again. The parties aren't just there to be there, they are a group of people with similar ideals on how the country should be run, and while they may not support every single thing their party does, they do tend to stick together to help support their over all cause.

At 2/15/06 04:16 AM, ReiperX wrote: Even if you wiped out the parties as they stand now, they would form again. The parties aren't just there to be there, they are a group of people with similar ideals on how the country should be run, and while they may not support every single thing their party does, they do tend to stick together to help support their over all cause.

Yes, but we need not set up our government to require bipartisanship. There's a good chance that we'd get better choices if it were practical to have more than two dominant parties, but with our current set up such is unlikely.

At 2/15/06 04:23 AM, bakem0n0 wrote:

At 2/15/06 04:16 AM, ReiperX wrote: Even if you wiped out the parties as they stand now, they would form again. The parties aren't just there to be there, they are a group of people with similar ideals on how the country should be run, and while they may not support every single thing their party does, they do tend to stick together to help support their over all cause.

Yes, but we need not set up our government to require bipartisanship. There's a good chance that we'd get better choices if it were practical to have more than two dominant parties, but with our current set up such is unlikely.

There are more than two parties, the Republican and Democratic parties are by far the most popular parties which is why they have the most power, if another party could become popular enough to compete with then two, then we'd have a 3 party system, I just don't see that happening. Its the people who give the parties the power, not the parties giving the parties the power, and its not the government that has set up only two primary political parties.

At 2/15/06 04:40 AM, ReiperX wrote: There are more than two parties, the Republican and Democratic parties are by far the most popular parties which is why they have the most power, if another party could become popular enough to compete with then two, then we'd have a 3 party system, I just don't see that happening. Its the people who give the parties the power, not the parties giving the parties the power, and its not the government that has set up only two primary political parties.

Many things are set up for two parties. Congress has specific positions for the heads of the majority and minority parties. Primaries are only for major parties in many states, etc.
Beyond that, I think it's mostly public opinion that keeps only two in play at a time; whenever one loses enough power to allow another to take its place it never regains power as it is seen to be weak.

At 2/15/06 04:55 AM, bakem0n0 wrote:

At 2/15/06 04:40 AM, ReiperX wrote:

Many things are set up for two parties. Congress has specific positions for the heads of the majority and minority parties. Primaries are only for major parties in many states, etc.
Beyond that, I think it's mostly public opinion that keeps only two in play at a time; whenever one loses enough power to allow another to take its place it never regains power as it is seen to be weak.

Well you have two parties that pretty much oppose each other on most major issues, abortion, big government vs small government, more socialist or more capitalistic ect. There isn't really enough room in the middle for a 3rd party to form.

At 2/15/06 04:58 AM, ReiperX wrote: Well you have two parties that pretty much oppose each other on most major issues, abortion, big government vs small government, more socialist or more capitalistic ect. There isn't really enough room in the middle for a 3rd party to form.

Yea, I suppose haveing the Conservative party, the Liberal party and the Intelligent party would be too much to ask . . .

The thing is, the two parties only seem to differ on the most exposed issues and they avoid any issue that won't work in their favor entirely; we end up with more of a two headed beast than with two seperate ones.

At 2/15/06 05:04 AM, bakem0n0 wrote:

Yea, I suppose haveing the Conservative party, the Liberal party and the Intelligent party would be too much to ask . . .

Not enough room for intelligence to take presidence with the extremes around. Sad to say.

The thing is, the two parties only seem to differ on the most exposed issues and they avoid any issue that won't work in their favor entirely; we end up with more of a two headed beast than with two seperate ones.

Same thing would happen with 3 4 or 5 parties. In order for them to actually get things passed, they still have to work together on many issues. Thats one problem that you can't get rid of, sad to say.

At 2/15/06 05:12 AM, ReiperX wrote:

At 2/15/06 05:04 AM, bakem0n0 wrote:

Yea, I suppose haveing the Conservative party, the Liberal party and the Intelligent party would be too much to ask . . .

Not enough room for intelligence to take presidence with the extremes around. Sad to say.

Yea, that's the main reason I'd want to get as much spread in the political power as possible: The more parties you have to draw from, the more likely you are to find a competent candidate. Also the chance of there being an extreme Pat Robertson type nominee would plummet. If a party goes toward an extreme end of the spectrum, a more moderate party could easily steal their votes by putting forth a slightly less extreme candidate who appeals slightly more to the other end of the spectrum, while still getting many followers from his end, thus making any sort of extremeist unlikely.

Unfortunately, this would also likely result in multiple way splits, but I'd still be stuck deciding between three bad choices than two.

At 2/15/06 05:24 AM, bakem0n0 wrote:

At 2/15/06 05:12 AM, ReiperX wrote:

Yea, that's the main reason I'd want to get as much spread in the political power as possible: The more parties you have to draw from, the more likely you are to find a competent candidate. Also the chance of there being an extreme Pat Robertson type nominee would plummet. If a party goes toward an extreme end of the spectrum, a more moderate party could easily steal their votes by putting forth a slightly less extreme candidate who appeals slightly more to the other end of the spectrum, while still getting many followers from his end, thus making any sort of extremeist unlikely.

Unfortunately, this would also likely result in multiple way splits, but I'd still be stuck deciding between three bad choices than two.

With the current elective system, presidential elections would be extremely hard to do with mutliple ties. Plus look at it this way, you have a party in the middle, two on the left and two on the right. The two on the right are going to have many similar interests, and the same withthe two on the left. They are going to merge together for mutual protection and better probability that their views are going to be passed. This leaves a very small percentage of people in the middle which are going to be grabbed by both sides and absorbed into their parties. Then guess what, you are back where you started. And the law can't force this not to happen, even if it were able to force the parties not to merge, there is nothing at all they could do about the parties assisting each other which is basically the same thing.

You're stuck with two major parties no matter which way you go.

There are democracies which have more than two parties. germany, for example, has 5 major parties. If americans don't want to have only two parties, then don't vote democrats or republicans. The parties are there, the votes are not.

We need a Senate and an Emperor!
*sniff* I miss you Rome....

At 2/14/06 09:27 PM, Seanman wrote: There would be even more competion. Because we could have like 10 opponents for president. And Citizen won't vote based off what party they are in so, people will listen to the Ideas of each candidate and vote for a better president.

It could go either way. I agree that some people will tune out candidates entirely based on party, however, even if we get rid of the parties those biases will be there.

Here's an idea. Instead of dismantling the party system, why don't we try to strengthen other parties like the Green or Independent? (A long shot if ever there was one, but still its worth a shot.)

At 2/19/06 12:41 AM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: We need a Senate and an Emperor!
*sniff* I miss you Rome....

A tear for those we've lost =*(

In all seriousness though: I'd like to see no political parties, just a bunch of guys getting voted on for their ideas, not their party's ideas. I also know that in this day and age a no parties system is just about impossible. So realistically, I'd like to see a bunch of small parties, instead of two big parties holding the monopoly.

At 2/19/06 09:58 PM, MagicalPJ wrote:

In all seriousness though: I'd like to see no political parties, just a bunch of guys getting voted on for their ideas, not their party's ideas. I also know that in this day and age a no parties system is just about impossible. So realistically, I'd like to see a bunch of small parties, instead of two big parties holding the monopoly.

The problem with that is everyone thinks differently. Sure we share some ideas and opinions in common. But the problem is, we all have our own views one certain things that are just a little different from the rest.

1 person cannot possibly take everything and everyone into consideration. Thats why there are political parties and levels of government. So not just 1 person is running the country.

At 2/14/06 09:21 PM, bakem0n0 wrote:

But the only reason they are important is the competition. If one was removed, the other would seize power, but if all parties were removed, the compitition would be immaterial.

and if they are removed, whats going to stop a dictatorship?