No Party System

[Alejandro1]

This idea came to me after reading several posts where people have said, "I vote Democrat," or, "I vote Republican":

Do you think political parties have done more good or more harm to our government? Does anyone believe that having a no party system is the best form of Democracy; one in which all individuals could run, even if they have very similar platforms?

[FUNKbrs]

Ok, heres my problem:

There will always be political activists.

They will always organize themselves in order to increase their efficiency.

If they are not allowed to organize into separate groups, they will still organize into [i]a[/i] group.

This will lead to a one-party system. Unless of course you illegalize political involvement, in which case noone will ever be able to run for office or lobby their political stance.

Conclusion: Hahaha, I beat you to the topic. I believe mine was called "the advantages of a single-party system".

[misterx2000]

Are you referring to anarchy? We used to have some adherents of anarchy in the BC...they're on a very long vacation now =(

Single party states...*thinks of current History course and 1930's Germany*

[JudgeDredd]

At 6/13/03 10:03 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:

If they are not allowed to organize into separate groups, they will still organize into [i]a[/i] group.

hahar, what a kewl typo that one!!

true, true!

[Alejandro1]

At 6/13/03 10:14 AM, misterx2000 wrote: Are you referring to anarchy? We used to have some adherents of anarchy in the BC...they're on a very long vacation now =(

This isn't the same as anarchy. I'm just saying, what if 5 republicans and 5 democrats ran against each other in every election; every man for himself. In the election, none of the people running would be labeled a democrat or republican; the runners would run on their own platforms (though, one person's may be similar to another's) and the people would vote on them based on their platforms (instead of a political party label).

I'm just fabricating this because I'm sick of people who say, "I don't like Bush and since Bush is Republican, I won't vote on Republicans." Likewise, I'm sick of hearing it the other way about Democrats.

[bengui]

A no party system=anarchy

we need political party, we need peoples to lead us, to make important decisions. Party works when it's democratic

[Commander-K25]

At 6/13/03 04:36 PM, bengui wrote: A no party system=anarchy

Not exactly. Anarchy is no-government system.

For example, there were no political parties in ancient Rome, yet it was not anarchy.

[mrpopenfresh]

If you get 5 democrats and 5 republicans to run, eventually all the democrats will join together and the same will happen with all the republicans. The fact is, the democrats all have the same general view and so do all the republicans. So what you would need is other parties than republicans and democrats.

[misterx2000]

At 6/13/03 11:22 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: If you get 5 democrats and 5 republicans to run, eventually all the democrats will join together and the same will happen with all the republicans. The fact is, the democrats all have the same general view and so do all the republicans. So what you would need is other parties than republicans and democrats.

That's right, they'll gang up to gain power. Wouldn't you team up with friends if you knew that was how to win?

And some other parties wouldn't be considered democratic, like the Communist Party for example.

[Slizor]

Twill lead to an Oligarchy, even more so than it is now (I class America as a "Constitutional Democracy".) Clearly only the rich would be able to fund a campagin...so only the rich would get elected...and they would then use their power for their own profit (wow, it's just like now!)

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/13/03 11:22 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: If you get 5 democrats and 5 republicans to run, eventually all the democrats will join together and the same will happen with all the republicans. The fact is, the democrats all have the same general view and so do all the republicans. So what you would need is other parties than republicans and democrats.

Thats the big problem. They aren't different enough. They all have more or less the same ideas, the democrats are a bit more liberal, but not much. In the UK we have the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberals. Our only problem now is that the Labour party are getting too conservative.

[Jimsween]

If you were going to have no party you would have to illegalize campaing contributions or else only rich people would win. And with that you would have to illegalize advertisements because then only rich lobbyist groups would be advertising. Then the problem arises that there is no way to know the canidates, this could be solved by means of a sort of political ladder. The bottom being something like a mayor and the top being president. That way only senators run for president and only governers and judges run for senate. This would at the same time increase involvment of people along with making them know more. Really I would prefer no vote than an ignorant one, at least with no vote you arent supporting something that could be the exact opposite of your beliefs.

[mrpopenfresh]

I thik what Alejandro meant was more than a two party system.

[swayside]

there should be no governmental distinction towards political parties. the constitution was drawn up without the concept of parties alive at that point. we shouldn't have a party system, but a party society is ok.