Active Ink Slinger
Should the US do away with the political party's and politicians just run for office to be given the chance to make a difference? Who really gives a shit who is Democrat or republican etc. , just get shit done or get the fuck out
Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
Politics
last reply
15 replies
1.3k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Active Ink Slinger
I'm with you...I don't think it will ever happen though.
Wouldn't you rather have a nice cup of tea?
Not sure how this would work. You could officially ban parties, but people would still organize unofficially to promote an agenda/politician.
Instead, maybe we should let foreign nations elect our leaders. The people of Cameroon could elect the US president, and the people of the US could elect the president of Uruguay, and so forth. I think if you randomly assign who elects who, you could end up with some pretty interesting results. Also, all political campaigns are only allowed to run for one week, at the end of which is the election, and election day is a national holiday of whatever country is doing the electing, and whatever country is having its leader elected.
Instead, maybe we should let foreign nations elect our leaders. The people of Cameroon could elect the US president, and the people of the US could elect the president of Uruguay, and so forth. I think if you randomly assign who elects who, you could end up with some pretty interesting results. Also, all political campaigns are only allowed to run for one week, at the end of which is the election, and election day is a national holiday of whatever country is doing the electing, and whatever country is having its leader elected.
Don't believe everything that you read.
Rainbow Warrior
The 2-party system worked for 200 years until campaign finance laws were relaxed and big money entered politics. Now, neither party represents the will of the people, just the will of special interests. Get money out of politics and the 2 party system will once again function well. Reverse Citizen's United, ban lobbyists, fund campaigns with public, not private funds, and get corporations and big banks out of politics, and we'll be a democracy again.
Quote by BethanyFrasier
The 2-party system worked for 200 years until campaign finance laws were relaxed and big money entered politics. Now, neither party represents the will of the people, just the will of special interests. Get money out of politics and the 2 party system will once again function well. Reverse Citizen's United, ban lobbyists, fund campaigns with public, not private funds, and get corporations and big banks out of politics, and we'll be a democracy again.
We have done some of this in Canada. Corporate donations are banned and private donations limited (though political fundraisers continue to be allowed and continue to create issues with conflict of interest). For a while, we had public funds going to parties based on share of popular vote but I think that got dropped or changed under the previous government. Have to check.
I think party politics are not going away in any Western democracy. Even if you didn't have them formally built into the system, coalitions of politicians with shared interests would naturally form and start working together. Better to have them formally recognized and controlled, but with room for new parties to aris.
And I think that's really where Canada and the U.S. part on this: we have new parties arising on a fairly regular basis. While our core parties remain the Liberal, Conservative, and New Democratic parties (NDP are a social democratic party with no real US counterpart save perhaps the left wing of the Democrats, e.g. Bernie), things are far more interesting than that when you know the history.
During my lifetime we've had Reform rise and then merge with (read: take over) the former Progressive Conservative party to form the current Conservative Party of Canada. We've had a Quebec nationalist party called the Bloc Quebecois rise and fall (they still have a couple seats in Parliament but are far below where they were back in the nineties). We've seen Greens start to become a force in some regions.
Even the NDP have only existed in present form since the 1960s when they arose out of a previous party called the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation). And the CCF was one of two new major parties that arose in the Depression, the other being Social Credit, which kind of fizzled out in the 1970s and 80s after winning a few provincial elections in provinces like Alberta and BC (where they held on the longest).
To my mind, having a system that allows for new parties and evolutionary (or revolutionary) change to existing parties is part of a healthy democracy and I really don't get the US two-party system. Either the two parties get along and you effectively have a one party state or they are clashing and you get gridlock. Having >2 adds voices and opens the door to things like minority governments and coalitions that allow those other voices to get involved in actual governance.
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Quote by seeker4
I think party politics are not going away in any Western democracy. Even if you didn't have them formally built into the system, coalitions of politicians with shared interests would naturally form and start working together. Better to have them formally recognized and controlled, but with room for new parties to aris.
And I think that's really where Canada and the U.S. part on this: we have new parties arising on a fairly regular basis. While our core parties remain the Liberal, Conservative, and New Democratic parties (NDP are a social democratic party with no real US counterpart save perhaps the left wing of the Democrats, e.g. Bernie), things are far more interesting than that when you know the history.
During my lifetime we've had Reform rise and then merge with (read: take over) the former Progressive Conservative party to form the current Conservative Party of Canada. We've had a Quebec nationalist party called the Bloc Quebecois rise and fall (they still have a couple seats in Parliament but are far below where they were back in the nineties). We've seen Greens start to become a force in some regions.
Even the NDP have only existed in present form since the 1960s when they arose out of a previous party called the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation). And the CCF was one of two new major parties that arose in the Depression, the other being Social Credit, which kind of fizzled out in the 1970s and 80s after winning a few provincial elections in provinces like Alberta and BC (where they held on the longest).
To my mind, having a system that allows for new parties and evolutionary (or revolutionary) change to existing parties is part of a healthy democracy and I really don't get the US two-party system. Either the two parties get along and you effectively have a one party state or they are clashing and you get gridlock. Having >2 adds voices and opens the door to things like minority governments and coalitions that allow those other voices to get involved in actual governance.
This.
=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===
Wouldn't you rather have a nice cup of tea?
Quote by seeker4
We have done some of this in Canada. Corporate donations are banned and private donations limited (though political fundraisers continue to be allowed and continue to create issues with conflict of interest). For a while, we had public funds going to parties based on share of popular vote but I think that got dropped or changed under the previous government. Have to check.
I think party politics are not going away in any Western democracy. Even if you didn't have them formally built into the system, coalitions of politicians with shared interests would naturally form and start working together. Better to have them formally recognized and controlled, but with room for new parties to aris.
And I think that's really where Canada and the U.S. part on this: we have new parties arising on a fairly regular basis. While our core parties remain the Liberal, Conservative, and New Democratic parties (NDP are a social democratic party with no real US counterpart save perhaps the left wing of the Democrats, e.g. Bernie), things are far more interesting than that when you know the history.
During my lifetime we've had Reform rise and then merge with (read: take over) the former Progressive Conservative party to form the current Conservative Party of Canada. We've had a Quebec nationalist party called the Bloc Quebecois rise and fall (they still have a couple seats in Parliament but are far below where they were back in the nineties). We've seen Greens start to become a force in some regions.
Even the NDP have only existed in present form since the 1960s when they arose out of a previous party called the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation). And the CCF was one of two new major parties that arose in the Depression, the other being Social Credit, which kind of fizzled out in the 1970s and 80s after winning a few provincial elections in provinces like Alberta and BC (where they held on the longest).
To my mind, having a system that allows for new parties and evolutionary (or revolutionary) change to existing parties is part of a healthy democracy and I really don't get the US two-party system. Either the two parties get along and you effectively have a one party state or they are clashing and you get gridlock. Having >2 adds voices and opens the door to things like minority governments and coalitions that allow those other voices to get involved in actual governance.
And our elections only last a couple of months rather than a couple of years. Also, meetings in the house of commons are far more lively and entertaining than the majority of congressional meetings.
Don't believe everything that you read.
This seems like more of a Think Tank subject...
George Washington warned against political parties, as he tried to temper the growing divide between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. This obviously didn't work since the divide led to the formation of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties.
The parties change names and they even change alignments (the democrats used to be the far more right wing of the two existing parties), but the American political system nurtures a bipartisan system.
The United Kingdom and Canada have a parliamentary system that encourages a spectrum of political ideals. There is a much less "us vs them" mentality. People in a region vote for their representative that then represents them in parliament. We have a variety of parties, although due to the prevalent right vs left phenomenon sweeping the Western world, hence we are seeing certain parties "ally" to gain the upper hand. I won't even go into the ridiculousness of the electoral college since I think that the majority of Americans probably see how dumb that system is. It may have worked in the 18th century but it certainly doesn't translate to modern day.
Nonetheless, you have people choosing red or blue and creating a divide that continues to separate the nation when individuals are forced to choose between one of two options. Of course you have Gary Johnson, but if you know how your system works you could see that he is a useless, wasted option. Third parties in the US have only served to disrupt the bipartisan system that you have chosen as your template.
Theodore Roosevelt first did it when he wanted to fuck up Taft. (side note: it worked very well.) Ross Perot did it again and it cost Bush the election. (which led to changes in the requirements for participation in debates.)
And Bernie supporters flocked to Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to avoid voting for Hillary or Trump. Bernie could have run as an independent and cut the left wing vote in half. But he is a very intelligent person who knows how the system works. He saw the lesser of two evils and threw his support behind Hillary.
If anyone voted of Stein, your efforts would probably be better suited to chatting up the white girl in dreadlocks at your local Whole Foods, because you obviously haven't looked into how your political structure works. Protest votes may get you laid by the girl you work at the organic coffee shop in Seattle but you're just pissing in the wind when it comes to the world of politics.
The American political structure reminds me a lot of the later stages of Republican Rome. One faction would gain power and then annihilate the opposing faction. After a period of complacency, the other faction would gain power and do the same. I mean... there's less neck stabbing and more gerrymandering, but the same thing seems to be happening in the modern American political system.
Know your political system. And then think about what you want to achieve. Evaluate your options and make an informed decision. You are probably not going to change anything soon, so work within what is available to you. And pay more attention to to the midterm elections! You have a senate and a house of representatives. This is kind of like a parliamentary system, however if only 30% of the population votes, then you are destined to bow to the will of elderly white people (because...newsflash..those are the people voting.)
The first step however, is probably just admitting and accepting the fact that your system is probably not the most effective in the dissemination of ideas. Then maybe look at how other countries work and pick and choose the facets that you think would be beneficial to accept.
George Washington warned against political parties, as he tried to temper the growing divide between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. This obviously didn't work since the divide led to the formation of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties.
The parties change names and they even change alignments (the democrats used to be the far more right wing of the two existing parties), but the American political system nurtures a bipartisan system.
The United Kingdom and Canada have a parliamentary system that encourages a spectrum of political ideals. There is a much less "us vs them" mentality. People in a region vote for their representative that then represents them in parliament. We have a variety of parties, although due to the prevalent right vs left phenomenon sweeping the Western world, hence we are seeing certain parties "ally" to gain the upper hand. I won't even go into the ridiculousness of the electoral college since I think that the majority of Americans probably see how dumb that system is. It may have worked in the 18th century but it certainly doesn't translate to modern day.
Nonetheless, you have people choosing red or blue and creating a divide that continues to separate the nation when individuals are forced to choose between one of two options. Of course you have Gary Johnson, but if you know how your system works you could see that he is a useless, wasted option. Third parties in the US have only served to disrupt the bipartisan system that you have chosen as your template.
Theodore Roosevelt first did it when he wanted to fuck up Taft. (side note: it worked very well.) Ross Perot did it again and it cost Bush the election. (which led to changes in the requirements for participation in debates.)
And Bernie supporters flocked to Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to avoid voting for Hillary or Trump. Bernie could have run as an independent and cut the left wing vote in half. But he is a very intelligent person who knows how the system works. He saw the lesser of two evils and threw his support behind Hillary.
If anyone voted of Stein, your efforts would probably be better suited to chatting up the white girl in dreadlocks at your local Whole Foods, because you obviously haven't looked into how your political structure works. Protest votes may get you laid by the girl you work at the organic coffee shop in Seattle but you're just pissing in the wind when it comes to the world of politics.
The American political structure reminds me a lot of the later stages of Republican Rome. One faction would gain power and then annihilate the opposing faction. After a period of complacency, the other faction would gain power and do the same. I mean... there's less neck stabbing and more gerrymandering, but the same thing seems to be happening in the modern American political system.
Know your political system. And then think about what you want to achieve. Evaluate your options and make an informed decision. You are probably not going to change anything soon, so work within what is available to you. And pay more attention to to the midterm elections! You have a senate and a house of representatives. This is kind of like a parliamentary system, however if only 30% of the population votes, then you are destined to bow to the will of elderly white people (because...newsflash..those are the people voting.)
The first step however, is probably just admitting and accepting the fact that your system is probably not the most effective in the dissemination of ideas. Then maybe look at how other countries work and pick and choose the facets that you think would be beneficial to accept.
Damon I think you are missing the very point of the electoral college. The design is in and of itself another check and balance. The US is not and never has been a "democracy" it is a republic. The constitution would never been ratified if it allowed a strict majority of votes to choose the President. Even in the early days when Presidental powers were nowhere near those that are now accepted. In fact if congress would have done their job years ago and made the hard choice of accepting their responsibility we wouldn't have near the chaos we are now faced with. In truth it is not the two party system that caused our current predicament it is congresses desire to hold their jobs by never taking the responsility of performing their constitutional duties
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BethanyFrasier
The 2-party system worked for 200 years until campaign finance laws were relaxed and big money entered politics. Now, neither party represents the will of the people, just the will of special interests. Get money out of politics and the 2 party system will once again function well. Reverse Citizen's United, ban lobbyists, fund campaigns with public, not private funds, and get corporations and big banks out of politics, and we'll be a democracy again.
Bethany, I have told you more than once that you are a smart young woman. But you missed a hanging curve ball this time. Many would agree that there is too much money in our political system. Banks and Corporation may have too large of voice in government. But so do Unions like SEIU and the NEA also.
Before you can do away with Lobbyist you need to Amend the first Amendment and take the peoples right to petition their government away from the citizens. I do not believe that is you intent.
Lastly, and a fine point this is not a Democracy and never was it has always been a Representative Republic.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BethanyFrasier
The 2-party system worked for 200 years until campaign finance laws were relaxed and big money entered politics. Now, neither party represents the will of the people, just the will of special interests. Get money out of politics and the 2 party system will once again function well. Reverse Citizen's United, ban lobbyists, fund campaigns with public, not private funds, and get corporations and big banks out of politics, and we'll be a democracy again.
Well said....and good luck with that
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Quote by Mixedupkaren
The US is not and never has been a "democracy" it is a republic.
Quote by 1nympholes
Lastly, and a fine point this is not a Democracy and never was it has always been a Representative Republic.
It's truly amazing how many Americans seem to think that democracy and republic are mutually exclusive. They're not and the US is both a democracy and a republic. It's not a direct or Athenian democracy but a representative democracy. A democracy still though.
(Representative) democracy is about how the government is formed. Republic is how the government is organized. These are two entirely different things.
=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by noll
It's truly amazing how many Americans seem to think that democracy and republic are mutually exclusive. They're not and the US is both a democracy and a republic. It's not a direct or Athenian democracy but a representative democracy. A democracy still though.
(Representative) democracy is about how the government is formed. Republic is how the government is organized. These are two entirely different things.
Noll if this thing we call government was truly a Representative Democracy then without restrictions the majority could override the interest of the minority at will. The United States Government run under a set of limits on the government called the Constitution. Maybe you have heard of it.
If people of my persuasion obtained absolute control of the government our first move would to require all Black Feathered Ducks be served as the entre at all Holiday Meals. That would be the basis of a representative form of government without restrictions or limitation on the governments authority.
This is a Republic with a Constitution to limit the authority of the government over the electorate.
If you would take a minute or two to read Article Four of the Constitution it makes it very clear that this government is a Republic!
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Quote by 1nympholes
Noll if this thing we call government was truly a Representative Democracy then without restrictions the majority could override the interest of the minority at will. The United States Government run under a set of limits on the government called the Constitution. Maybe you have heard of it.
If people of my persuasion obtained absolute control of the government our first move would to require all Black Feathered Ducks be served as the entre at all Holiday Meals. That would be the basis of a representative form of government without restrictions or limitation on the governments authority.
This is a Republic with a Constitution to limit the authority of the government over the electorate.
If you would take a minute or two to read Article Four of the Constitution it makes it very clear that this government is a Republic!
I'm not denying that the US is a republic. I'm saying it's both a republic as well as a democracy. Your definition of democracy is just too narrow. There are many forms of democracies and the one you claim is the only one is probably not in use in any country, because it's just too simplistic for running a nation. The concept of democracy evolved over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===
Quote by noll
It's truly amazing how many Americans seem to think that democracy and republic are mutually exclusive. They're not and the US is both a democracy and a republic. It's not a direct or Athenian democracy but a representative democracy. A democracy still though.
(Representative) democracy is about how the government is formed. Republic is how the government is organized. These are two entirely different things.
Noll maybe it is a matter semantics but my rememberence of some of the writings of the founding fathers and the Federalist papers make me believe that the electoral college was designed to basically invalidate the possibility of a strictly popular vote. The idea and this was (before a two party system evolved) that no one candidate would accumulate a majority of electoral votes and the choice of President would always revert to the Conngress allowing them to choose the President. The idea being that a strict majority of votes would not be the deciding factor. In fact it was believed that regional interests would always be the biggest threat to governing the nation. My very limited knowledge of a Parlimentry form of government was a concern as much as a monarchy in that regard. But I am more than open to you showing me my error in judgement .
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Quote by Mixedupkaren
Noll maybe it is a matter semantics but my rememberence of some of the writings of the founding fathers and the Federalist papers make me believe that the electoral college was designed to basically invalidate the possibility of a strictly popular vote. The idea and this was (before a two party system evolved) that no one candidate would accumulate a majority of electoral votes and the choice of President would always revert to the Conngress allowing them to choose the President. The idea being that a strict majority of votes would not be the deciding factor. In fact it was believed that regional interests would always be the biggest threat to governing the nation. My very limited knowledge of a Parlimentry form of government was a concern as much as a monarchy in that regard. But I am more than open to you showing me my error in judgement .
Yes, it is semantics. But semantics are important in discussions. There's more than one form of democracy and the US is one of them. By sticking to the very narrow form of direct/Athenian democracy as the the only one true form of democracy you end up with a false dichotomy, as democracy and republic describe different aspects of government that are not mutually exclusive (how it's selected vs how it's organized). Ask France, ask Germany, Italy, etc.
In the time of the founding fathers direct democracy was indeed what the word 'democracy' was used for most. But these days that's not the case anymore, yet in the US many schools still seem to teach it as such. Which is a shame. We're not living in the 18th century anymore and democracy has evolved. These days 'democracy' mostly refers to representative democracy.
=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===