advantages of a single-party system

[FUNKbrs]

I've noticed a lot of posters on the politics forum are either left of right polarized ie democrats or repbulicans. But what if political parties were abolished, and there was only one political coomunity? Would this stop partisan bickering, or promote a political monopoly? How do we solve the problem of partisan politics?

[Shih]

Can't even if parties were technically abolished they would still exist. People will always congregate in groups of similiar characteristics, what we need is more political parties to keep the curretn monopoly from growing anymore goofy.

[FUNKbrs]

hmmm.... lots of small political parties.... But if there are lots of party candidates, then the candidate with the most votes will still not be supported by the majority because the vote is split too many ways. How will we counteract this? Multiple elections?

[nitroxide]

Funk people have always seperated themselves into political groups.Even if abolished they would still would catergorize themselves.What i want to know funk is how would this work,people views will never truely be matched.Everyones stand on topics differ,how can every one be put in one party?

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/3/03 01:50 PM, nitroxide wrote: Funk people have always seperated themselves into political groups.Even if abolished they would still would catergorize themselves.What i want to know funk is how would this work,people views will never truely be matched.Everyones stand on topics differ,how can every one be put in one party?

well, the idea is that basically everyone has the same idea of what the government should do (ie keep everyone happy). Since everyone agrees on this major point, all political discussion within the party has a unifying factor. This unifying factor helps keep people openminded in the decision making progress, instead of looking at other people in government at "enemies". Democrats and Republicans hate each other, but if there was only one party, everyone would stand for their own beliefs, instead of toeing the party line (ie blindly agreeing with whatever your party says). The single party would decide who the top 2 candidates for an election were, and they would run. This keeps the number of viable candidates down, thus ensuring the winner has the support of the majority of the population, and not just more votes than the other candidates (EX= out of 100 votes, if A=25, B=35, C=40, C wins, even though there were more (60) supporters of A and B combined)

[Kenney333]

I like the idea of a single party system because it allows more unity in the government thus more work gets done, a single party could even use different policies for different parts of a country if need be, the problem is that the powers of a one party system are easily abbused by the rulers

[Alejandro1]

At 6/3/03 04:14 PM, Kenney333 wrote: the problem is that the powers of a one party system are easily abbused by the rulers

Yes, a one party system is exactly that; people are controlled by the party. The people's lives are completely directed by the government: the jobs they do, the activities they can participate in, and not to mention the propoganda.

"Two plus two equals five Winston."

[cylon]

Single party?

OKAY - so what if the government is acting really ass? What can you do? Vote for the opposition? There is no opposition.

You have people who blindly follow their party's policies now, well that won't disappear if there's only one party. And then when it happens - when the one party settles into a definite opinion on everything, what can you do? Vote against them? If there are elections, they'd be complete shams.

You can't make everyone happy, no matter what. Two parties are not enough, I think, but it's better than one.

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/3/03 01:32 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I've noticed a lot of posters on the politics forum are either left of right polarized ie democrats or repbulicans. But what if political parties were abolished, and there was only one political coomunity? Would this stop partisan bickering, or promote a political monopoly? How do we solve the problem of partisan politics?

One of the advantages of a one party system is that laws get proposed and passed a lot quicker. Ths disadvantage is that not all views get accounted for.

[FUNKbrs]

but what if said single party had a good set of internal checks and balances? Interior commitees of randomly apointed jurors for instance. Much like the judicial system, the single party system could draft taxpaying individuals randomly through a draft, thus ensuring true representation of the views common to the populace. These random commitees could be paid to reasearch candidates in full blown trials for candidacy, ensuring only the best and most reflective of the common man candidates were given spots on the ballot.

[Jimsween]

Yeah a single party system would be so awesome, no need to worry about voting because they can rig the elections anyway. And you dont have to worry about the government making the best deciscions for you because as long as you bribe them enough you can get them to do whatever you want. We can be just like 1/3 of Africa!!!

[karasz]

the multiple party system would be kinda fun... after the first election if nobody gets 50% + 1 vote, then teh top 2 vote getters face against each other in a runoff election...

cant really go wrong with that... the only downfall would be one like france got last year for prez... chirac (conservative) against someone considered a notch or two below hitler... so all the liberals voted against the other guy...

it would actually make things way more fun...

[mysecondstar]

At 6/3/03 01:32 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I've noticed a lot of posters on the politics forum are either left of right polarized ie democrats or repbulicans. But what if political parties were abolished, and there was only one political coomunity? Would this stop partisan bickering, or promote a political monopoly? How do we solve the problem of partisan politics?

single party system = communism

and, despite how well it works in theory, doesn't work in real life.

[Slizor]

single party system = communism

No, Single party system = Dictatorship. Communism = Nothing to say on the matter.

Anyhow, I won't go into all the stupid remarks (We should ban all parties, then only have one. Yeah, that would give us more unity.) Mainly because I don't want to waste my time. But I will say this, serious reform would need to be made to the American electoral system if you got rid of the parties, or you would just end up with the rich ruling (more than they do so now.)

[Spike-J-Wolfwood]

Actually, American politicians are so middle of the row these days that we almost do have a single party government. Let’s see I can either get a conservative liberal, or a liberal conservative. And don’t fool yourselves, even though we do have parties that run other democrats and republicans they have no real chance to win. There’s so little media coverage of them that most aren’t aware of their existence. For instance, not many realize that there is a communist party that runs in every major US election.

[JMHX]

Someone please remind me why the DAG is still around making topics like this that propose dictatorship in terms that morons can understand? Jee-sus.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/4/03 06:08 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Someone please remind me why the DAG is still around making topics like this that propose dictatorship in terms that morons can understand? Jee-sus.

well, my "revive murderous imperialism" thread didnt exactly attract the kind of results I'd hoped. I figured I'd argue the whole thing out in stages.

Anyways, what does your comment have to do with partisanship or the lack thereof? I realize you don't like the topic, but why do you post if you are not willing to make a contribution?

There ARE advantages to a single party state, but also I wanted people to propose other opposing concepts as well.

[JudgeDredd]

i dont reckon there is a natural link between single party polotics and dictatorships or communism or poverty.

Imagine a in perfect world, where every aspect of ownership is dealt with by digital voting. Every need fulfilled by robots (or whatever ya dream world is =)

Martix-1 "We made a perfect program in the matrix, but vast crops were lost because humans rejected the concept of perfect world" ...koz "we gave birth to artificial intelligence - AI"

So the main lesson left to learn from our massive artificial digital intellects and us humans is - how to maximize the yield of world resources, and not just the narrow vision maximization of profits.

Global Culture ..hardcover titled "How to master concensus in a perfect world", or for all the negative thoughtsters, a paperback version called "let's all sing a sad song about our ugly 1-party flag"

DAnG! dat's good.. ;)

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/3/03 11:03 PM, mysecondstar wrote: single party system = communism

Single Party System = Fashism.

[stafffighter]

Its in the nature of humanity to seek definition through dividing ourselves into groups. Its sad really.

[Jlop985]

There is perceived safety and security in numbers. That being said, the theoretical nature of American democracy is that the individual is sovereign, not the group. Because of this, I think that people need a will separate from their party, so that they will act on what is good for themselves. Also, I think that in order to improve our democracy, we need to cultivate the growth of other parties in order to provide differing viewpoints with support groups. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that we should have only two parties. These two parties constrict the views of American voters and politicians as well. A few months ago I agrued with a couple of people on the benefits of having more parties. They were so ignorant as to believe the two party system is beneficial. It is only a self-continuating illegitimate institution. I consider myself Republican, yet I don't agree with many of their issues. I agree far less with the Democrats, so that is why I am Republican. I demand more choice! Also, if all parties are banned, then it would be difficult to band people together against a well-organized political enemy. In one party states, the republican system of checks and balances, ensuring that no person or group becomes too powerful, is gone. As much as my country is a democracy, it is also a republic, and must have divided governmental pwer as such.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/7/03 12:49 AM, Jlop985 wrote: There is perceived safety and security in numbers. That being said, the theoretical nature of American democracy is that the individual is sovereign, not the group. Because of this, I think that people need a will separate from their party, so that they will act on what is good for themselves. Also, I think that in order to improve our democracy, we need to cultivate the growth of other parties in order to provide differing viewpoints with support groups. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that we should have only two parties. These two parties constrict the views of American voters and politicians as well. A few months ago I agrued with a couple of people on the benefits of having more parties. They were so ignorant as to believe the two party system is beneficial. It is only a self-continuating illegitimate institution. I consider myself Republican, yet I don't agree with many of their issues. I agree far less with the Democrats, so that is why I am Republican. I demand more choice! Also, if all parties are banned, then it would be difficult to band people together against a well-organized political enemy. In one party states, the republican system of checks and balances, ensuring that no person or group becomes too powerful, is gone. As much as my country is a democracy, it is also a republic, and must have divided governmental pwer as such.

argh.... the whole point of a single party system is that the party line is only "we are political activists". party membership only divides the politically inactive from the active. The idea is to separate political parties from political stances, so that any activist can have any views they want. compare this to a multiparty system, where in order to start a new movement, an entirely new party must be formed. But in a single party system, the entire definition of what a political party is changes from necessity. Thus freedom of political view is only limited by the number of candidates, not the number of parties with thier democrat/republican clones.

[misterx2000]

At 6/5/03 05:34 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

At 6/3/03 11:03 PM, mysecondstar wrote: single party system = communism

Single Party System = Fashism.

It's "facism".

So single party states can only be extremist groups...that's what I gather so far.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/13/03 10:28 AM, misterx2000 wrote: So single party states can only be extremist groups...that's what I gather so far.

Not necessarily. Only when the parties internal organization is faulty, as it generally can become through apathetic maintenance by party supporters. The Party should never allow itself to be dominated by any one member. I believe I posted a solution for this involving jurors and trials for candidacy.