The problem with political parties.

The problem with political parties are that they are simply a divider. Nothing in the world, besides religion, divides a people more. Democrats and Republicans. Liberals and Conservatives. Who gives a shit what party someone is? All it does is label someone with extremes, which then pisses them off.

"I support abortion!"
"Oh, another democrat."
"No sir, I'm a republican."
"BUT WUT U SAID ABORTION IS SUPPORTING IS UER!"
"K?"
"PARADOX MIND BLOW GASM!"

It's very typical. Also seeing people blame one side or another is absolutely pathetic. It isn't one political parties fault for something. It's the nations and it does include you. As long as people continue to put the blame on others, shit like this will happen constantly.

What's the best way to divide a country? Have two conflicting parties fight eachother for political power. Simple as that.

This is what really gets me angry. When somebody starts bringing up political parties in a conversation, the blames start to get tossed around. Who gives a shit who you think is to blame?

In short, we need to ditch political parties as a whole and simply elect people by what they actually are, not what party they represent.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 10/17/06 09:48 PM, CrimsonEdge wrote:

In short, we need to ditch political parties as a whole and simply elect people by what they actually are, not what party they represent.

Won't happen, people migrate towards more powerfull people that represent thier ideas.

Look at the founding of our country.

[Tancrisism]

I agree completely, although I doubt it'll happen.

The far-left and far-right seem to be argue each other no matter what the debate is. It seems to be no longer for the benefit of the country, but for personal gain.

[200monkeys]

As much as I agree, and as much as it should happen, it won't. I am not going to try and believe it will, but sometimes it is nice to dream. Maybe someone could vote on who they support instead of what party they support, but bah, who needs that?

Speaking of seperation.... My friend got dumped by his girlfriend because he is a Democrat. Lame or what?

Political parties are probably the least needed part of our government. We could do just fine without them, if not better. But, they will not leave, so we might as well get used to them.

[Dragon-Smaug]

I agree, political parties are bad. Even George Washington expressed a hope that they would not form.

[EnragedSephiroth]

What pisses me off even more is the media coverage the upcoming elections are recieving. I mean ok we're a democracy and we should be informed about the people running for office but C'MON CNN AND FOX WTF?! We're over here giving up our right to go to trial to the military commissions bill Bush just signed and you're doing a HUGE expose on politicians? Launching your spins back and forth at each other between two parties, what the hell is that? Who gives a shit, this isn't celebrity news, we're talking about politics here not politicians gimme a break!

[BURT92]

you have no idea how po;tics work and therfore you should have no say about wether the two party system works or not

[UndeadTemplar88]

At 10/17/06 09:48 PM, CrimsonEdge wrote:
It's very typical. Also seeing people blame one side or another is absolutely pathetic. It isn't one political parties fault for something. It's the nations and it does include you. As long as people continue to put the blame on others, shit like this will happen constantly.

Heh, that is Fox news alrighty. But yeah...political parties blaming other political parties for their representation of a nation as a whole is truly pathetic

At 10/18/06 09:36 PM, BURT92 wrote: you have no idea how po;tics work and therfore you should have no say about wether the two party system works or not

I don't? My bad.

Except that history has shown that the two party system doesn't work just like the electoral college.

At 10/18/06 09:39 PM, UndeadTemplar88 wrote: Heh, that is Fox news alrighty.

That's sort of what I was talking about. Who cares who's fault it is? No one should be at blame, it should simply stop. News channels read political blogs. If more and more people post about how shitty the news is and how these "no spin zones" are filled with nothing but spin, then it'll stop.

It's pretty freaking simple to stop watching T.V. and to get your news from somewhere else.

[Hardhat]

yeah your right washington did say that, but he was wrong

The united states is a representive government therefore it has to represent the people it has as its constituants.

Meaning one party could not fully represent the whole 300 mil. that exist in the U.S today

The great thing about democracy is that is supports a multi party system, hell we are lucky we only have two powerful groups, ask some of the european users how many powerful political groups in their country. What im trying to get at is compromise is what makes democracy work when one group gets out of hand one is there to slap them in the face and say "hey are fu#@in stupid"

In summary political parties are helpful because they better represent the people, and promote change at a tolerable pace

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 10/20/06 06:30 AM, hardhat wrote: The united states is a representive government therefore it has to represent the people it has as its constituants.
Meaning one party could not fully represent the whole 300 mil. that exist in the U.S today

One party couldn't represent everyone, however, lotsof individual candidates who aren't members of parties can.

Seriously, get rid fo parties and just have everyone stand as an independent and have people actually vote on the issues and not whether or not they have the name Democrat or Republican next to their name on the ballot sheet.

The great thing about democracy is that is supports a multi party system, hell we are lucky we only have two powerful groups, ask some of the european users how many powerful political groups in their country.

And I counter your point and say a two party system is a shit way of running a country. It just isn't democratic, as it doesn't let other people with different beliefs have a chance of actually getting into power.

Considering America is suppsoed to be the home of Democracy, it really doesn't set a good precedent if you're utilising a system that is biased against political parties that aren't either Democrats or Republicans.

What im trying to get at is compromise is what makes democracy work when one group gets out of hand one is there to slap them in the face and say "hey are fu#@in stupid"

Parties telling each other "Hey you're fucking stupid" is what has lead to this whole blame game that occurs in politics. Democrats blame Republicans for something the Republicans didn't have a hand in, and vice versa.

The only major function that parties serve is to educate the populace on current issue in politics. the job of holding government accountable is done by congress and that cna be done regardles sof whether there ar epartie sor not. Personally, I think it would do a betetr job if there weren't any parties.

In summary political parties are helpful because they better represent the people, and promote change at a tolerable pace

Independents will also represent the people, and consdiering the sort of people running for the senate and House of Representatives will be the same sort of people, the pace of change will more than likely remain the same. The left and right will always argue so therefore the amount of change will still be regulated.

[Dragon-Smaug]

At 10/20/06 06:30 AM, hardhat wrote: yeah your right washington did say that, but he was wrong

The united states is a representive government therefore it has to represent the people it has as its constituants.

Are grouping people into parties with a set of beliefs and forcing candidates to adhere to that set of beliefs in order to be elected within that party a better representation than having candidates run on their own merits with their own views and without a party platform attached to them?

Parties are not necessary for representative democracy. It is easy for them to form, yes, but they can also be restrictive. In a two-party system the ideas of the minority may be ignored. Multi-party is better than two-party, but zero party solves the problems parties present (although, admittedly, make it more difficult for a politician to rise in fame and worthiness in the eyes of the public).

Meaning one party could not fully represent the whole 300 mil. that exist in the U.S today

Zero party DOES NOT EQUAL one party. Zero party is actually like infinite parties, or n parties, where n is the population of the eligible voting community.

The great thing about democracy is that is supports a multi party system, hell we are lucky we only have two powerful groups, ask some of the european users how many powerful political groups in their country. What im trying to get at is compromise is what makes democracy work when one group gets out of hand one is there to slap them in the face and say "hey are fu#@in stupid"

We are unlucky we are forced to choose between two groups. What if I like a third party candidate? Many voters don’t vote for a third party because they feel it would have no effect. Parties are conducive to this feeling. Just as two parties is better than one party, it seems to me that many parties are better than two parties. In places like Israel, with 20 or so parties, where they have to form coalition governments, it allows the voices of more minor groups to get heard. It more accurately reflects the will of the people, don’t you think? Following that vein, infinite parties, or in other words no parties, is the ideal voting situation. True, the voter may have to think more and actually look at the candidates instead of voting for a party, but I think that is a good thing.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

Political parties aren’t inherently bad. But the less you have, the worse they are.

And the two party system the US has is just a joke.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 10/20/06 02:41 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: And the two party system the US has is just a joke.

Any two party system is a joke. The problem isn't just limited to the US.

In certain ways the US two party system is actually better than that of the rest of the world's as more focus is placed on the individual candidates rather than the party the belong to, which is infinitely better than the way things work in Britain.

[JMHX]

You're WAY smarter than James Madison.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 10/20/06 03:04 PM, JMHX wrote: You're WAY smarter than James Madison.

Political parties were never constructed into the Constitution, parties by themself weren't even imagined.

Organised politcal opposition in that time was considered as a faction and though of as corrupt.

Political parties were man's own wonderfull inventions, there were never meant to be in our government.

Why do you think Washington decided to go for a second term, He hated the presidency but wanted to keep Jefferson and Hamiltons' respective parties in check and reverse the damage done.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/20/06 02:53 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Any two party system is a joke. The problem isn't just limited to the US.

Did I say it was?

In certain ways the US two party system is actually better than that of the rest of the world's as more focus is placed on the individual candidates rather than the party the belong to, which is infinitely better than the way things work in Britain.

I disagree. I’d say the party to individual ratio is very similar.

But for one thing, in the UK the liberal/conservative divide is nowhere near as black and white.

And in the Scottish Parliament, with the FPTP and PR hybrid system we have, things are much more democratic, with at least four, arguably six main parties, unlike the British three.

[JMHX]

At 10/20/06 03:12 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/20/06 03:04 PM, JMHX wrote:

Why do you think Washington decided to go for a second term, He hated the presidency but wanted to keep Jefferson and Hamiltons' respective parties in check and reverse the damage done.

And the way Washington kept the parties in check was by becoming a strong Federalist in all but name, and lending his complete support to the Arch-Federalist Adams in the next election. Before the Constitution was even completed we can begin to see the rumblings of party structure, and the nonpartisan system lasted an impressive four years after Washington before the diverse interests of a diverse nation manifested themselves into individual parties. Remember, Jefferson quit in protest during Washington's term because he was allowing Hamilton and his Federalist allies almost complete control of the machinations of his administration, down to writing his speeches and signing his official documents.

[Elfer]

This is why a two-party system DOESN'T WORK.

If you don't like it, vote third party instead.

[stafffighter]

At 10/20/06 02:41 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: Political parties aren’t inherently bad. But the less you have, the worse they are.

You're too old to misunderstand anarchy man

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 10/20/06 03:12 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: Did I say it was?

I got the impression you were. My mistake.

I disagree. I’d say the party to individual ratio is very similar.

I have to stick with my guns and say you're wrong.

If you look at American politics you'll notice that you have Democrats down south with similar views to Republicans. Likewise on the east coast you'll find Republicans who share more of their policies with the Democrats than they do with their Republican brothers down south who are way more conservative.

All you have to do is look at the Senate to see that certain senators of the Democrat party have very different views on policy. The same goes for the Republicans

If candidates for American elections don't follow a party guideline, and they really don't, of what they stand for then the party becomes meaningless which means the Individual candidate becomes the most important thing in a campaign.

But for one thing, in the UK the liberal/conservative divide is nowhere near as black and white.

No point in arguing over this point a sits true.

And in the Scottish Parliament, with the FPTP and PR hybrid system we have, things are much more democratic, with at least four, arguably six main parties, unlike the British three.

I'd argue that we only have two in the British electoral system, as the Lib Dems aren't in any position to actually win an election.

But anyway, a hybrid of FPTP and PR sounds like a good plan but a full on PR system using the single transferable vote would be a much better way to go in my oppinion. the additional member system ( I think is what's being used in Scotalnd) just doesn't cut it for me. Why have 6 main parties when you can give people even more choice and have 8 or 10?

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/20/06 03:50 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: I have to stick with my guns and say you're wrong.

If you look at American politics you'll notice that you have Democrats down south with similar views to Republicans. Likewise on the east coast you'll find Republicans who share more of their policies with the Democrats than they do with their Republican brothers down south who are way more conservative.

All you have to do is look at the Senate to see that certain senators of the Democrat party have very different views on policy. The same goes for the Republicans

If candidates for American elections don't follow a party guideline, and they really don't, of what they stand for then the party becomes meaningless which means the Individual candidate becomes the most important thing in a campaign.

Hmm, you may have a point there. But those divisions also exist here, just maybe not to the same extent. Look at all the trouble Labour backbenchers have been causing Tony over the past few years.

I'd argue that we only have two in the British electoral system, as the Lib Dems aren't in any position to actually win an election.

Agreed. But they are in a position to take vital seats (and a fair numberof them) away from the main two, something that really can't be said for and US third parties.

But anyway, a hybrid of FPTP and PR sounds like a good plan but a full on PR system using the single transferable vote would be a much better way to go in my oppinion. the additional member system ( I think is what's being used in Scotalnd) just doesn't cut it for me. Why have 6 main parties when you can give people even more choice and have 8 or 10?

I wholeheartedly agree. Although i do have small reservations on whether a full PR system would provide a fully functioning government. But seeing as most people are moderates, and most moderate parties have similar policies, i don't see why it wouldn’t for the most part. the labour/lib-dem coalition in Scotland has been very successful.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 10/20/06 03:19 PM, Elfer wrote: This is why a two-party system DOESN'T WORK.

If you don't like it, vote third party instead.

You know, just not voting would also get the same result.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 10/20/06 04:11 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: Hmm, you may have a point there. But those divisions also exist here, just maybe not to the same extent. Look at all the trouble Labour backbenchers have been causing Tony over the past few years.

Whilst there are divisions wihin the British parties, they aren't as sever as those in America. primarily because the parties have a basic ideological basis that they all agree upon to a certain extent. They don't even have that in America.

Agreed. But they are in a position to take vital seats (and a fair numberof them) away from the main two, something that really can't be said for and US third parties.

Very true, though if Ming the mericless is going to be as dull as he has been so far then the Lib Dems are going to take a thrashing at the next election.

[Elfer]

At 10/20/06 05:11 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/20/06 03:19 PM, Elfer wrote: This is why a two-party system DOESN'T WORK.

If you don't like it, vote third party instead.

You know, just not voting would also get the same result.

That's the problem with a two-party system. Everyone is a moron.

What you need to do is get EVERYONE voting for third parties if you want true representation. Instead, what you have is parties that try to have a big amalgamated mass appeal that doesn't truly appeal to anyone, they're just picking the party that they hate the least.

The mentality that voting third party is "throwing your vote away" is the same mentality that causes voting for a third party to be throwing your vote away. People need to start becoming aware on a large scale that they have other options that they can explore.

[Memorize]

At 10/20/06 07:08 PM, Elfer wrote:

What you need to do is get EVERYONE voting for third parties if you want true representation.

Is no one voting for a 3rd party because they think their only chance is to vote from the 2 likely? Or is it because they just don't like the 3rd party?

Quite honestly, if everyone specifically voted for their "3rd party" then I still highly doubt it'd reach Dem or Rep.

The mentality that voting third party is "throwing your vote away" is the same mentality that causes voting for a third party to be throwing your vote away. People need to start becoming aware on a large scale that they have other options that they can explore.

Sure, when most of the nation decides "Ok, I'll a 3rd party today".

[ImmoralLibertarian]

Anyone remember the Simpson’s episode where Kang & Kodos have taken over the bodies of the Democratic and Republican representatives?

[Elfer]

At 10/20/06 07:13 PM, Integrity wrote: Sure, when most of the nation decides "Ok, I'll a 3rd party today".

This is the problem. Nobody wants to fucking own up and start doing it themselves. But you want to know the truth? On an individual basis, if you vote for the republicans or the democrats, the net effect is still the same as not voting, because nobody ever wins by a margin of one vote.

So you might as well vote for the party you actually like, because it doesn't matter either way.

[Memorize]

At 10/20/06 07:30 PM, Elfer wrote:

So you might as well vote for the party you actually like, because it doesn't matter either way.

Yes indeedy.

[JMHX]

Voting for a third party is in now way throwing a vote away. The only way to throw a vote away is to not vote.