Whats wrong with parties?

[DrFaroohk]

I remember learning in school that GW thought political parties would be the downfall of the US, and I just noticed another little blurb on it somewhere and it got me thinking...is it really that bad?

Just because you take the name away, they still hold the ideals. That guy you used to call a republican still believes all the same stuff. He just doesn't have a name now. You're still going to agree or disagree with him right?

[Greenday]

He was right. Our two party system is screwing up America pretty bad. People vote based on the R or D next to a person's name, not whether or not they agree on the issues.

For instance, Ron Paul is pretty freaking liberal. But because he has a R next to his name, you can bet your ass a lot of democrats wouldn't vote for him even if they don't like Obama. Shit isn't getting done like it should be. It's all about the good of the party, not the good of the people.

[mikoyan29]

Ron Paul is an example of what happens when you get too far on one extreme of the political spectrum. He is very liberal on issues of personal liberties but he is conservative on some of the other issues.

The problem I have with parties is how they expect their members to march lockstep with them on every issue and they try to treat everything as black and white...

[HYHYBT]

Suppose, for a moment, that not only the names, but also the *associations* of parties vanished. Each candidate must stand on his own merits, is free to take any position he likes on any issue, etc. What would that mean, if it could be kept up?

One obvious effect would be eliminating primaries. Multiple *real* choices available in the general election. (Perhaps importing the Australian instant runoff system?)

No parties means no party backing of candidates. Again, everybody on their own. Would that not make a difference?

No party *structure* where whichever one has the most representatives controls Congress. No blocking appointments simply because they're made by someone on the other side. (That doesn't mean appointments cannot be blocked; but with a wider range of views and no solid red/blue divide, you'd have to do the work of aligning others on your side rather than trusting for party support.)

And so on. The trouble is that parties are inevitable: once you *do* get people aligned for one issue, they tend to stick together and it builds itself from there.

[AdminAssistant]

He is very liberal on issues of personal liberties

Which personal liberties? Because he is very much against gay marriage and women's health rights.

[Sleepwalker]

Ron Paul is against civil rights in general. You'd have to be coming at it from a pretty anarchistic point of view to say he was heavily for personal liberty.

[Hyena Dandy]

He was right. Our two party system is screwing up America pretty bad. People vote based on the R or D next to a person's name, not whether or not they agree on the issues.

Basicaly, yes.

[fireheart17]

One obvious effect would be eliminating primaries. Multiple *real* choices available in the general election. (Perhaps importing the Australian instant runoff system?)

We still have a similar problem with party lines, but the general idea works. I'll provide a quick explanation as to how that works: similar to your congressional districts, each state is divided into electoral districts at both state and federal levels of Government. The selection for the candidates for each seat occurs during party meetings, usually there's one candidate per party per electoral district.

The leader of each party is decided through a vote in the party room.

[Greenday]

Which personal liberties? Because he is very much against gay marriage and women's health rights.

He's pretty liberal compared to the rest of the GOP field.

[Gravekeeper]

He's pretty liberal compared to the rest of the GOP field.

Oh, I don't know. Romney will play any position on the field you want. -.-

Parties aren't quite the problem there so much as the amount of power and money thats allowed to flow into the parties. As long as US politics remain solely a numbers game its going to remain completely fucked. Your position, character and goals don't mean shit if you don't have a few million in the bank to start with. Hence US politics is largely a self indulgent, pointless spectacle played mainly by crotchity old rich white dudes that are still struggling with black people being allowed to sit anywhere they want on the bus.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

It's not the concept of political parties that is the issue. But what the political parties have become in recent years.

Back in the day, you had members of the political parties that had a clue as to what their constituents wanted/needed in their lives.

Now you have the 2.5% of the population who are at the extreme right and the 2.5% of the population on the extreme left who are trying to rule the 95% of the population that live in the middle.

I believe in the right to own and operate firearms but at the same time believe in cool-down periods and would love to see gun ownership requiring a license that you have to prove competency in the same way that you need to prove the same for driving a car.

I am anti-abortion but not so militantly as to want to infringe upon the rights of a woman to her own body.

I believe in giving businesses tax breaks and incentives to help them make more jobs for Americans while at the same time I also believe in lightening the tax burden on the lower classes. I also believe in a flat tax. so I'm covering three political parties with that one.

But you can see that I live in a world that is in the shades of gray in between the extremes that the political parties have become.

The real problem is that they are now so polarized that one will not agree to anything the other says even if it is in the best interest of both simply because the other side said it.

The party system is not the problem. There is nothing wrong with having differing viewpoints in the government. But the real flaw is the way they have allowed themselves to become so polarized that in order to hold a higher political office.

[bara]

its simple,

Party system makes it an us v them attitude.
Once you are elected you are on the same team, or should be. This isnt the case with our current system.
This is why nothing gets accomplished. Cant win a game if your team is to busy playing against itself.

[Lachrymose]

We should go back to the way the first couple presidents/vice presidents were elected:

The candidate who received the most votes became president.
The candidate who received second most votes became vice-president.

This was independent of party affiliation.

Could you imagine?

[HYHYBT]

We still have a similar problem with party lines, but the general idea works. I'll provide a quick explanation as to how that works: similar to your congressional districts, each state is divided into electoral districts at both state and federal levels of Government. The selection for the candidates for each seat occurs during party meetings, usually there's one candidate per party per electoral district.

The leader of each party is decided through a vote in the party room.

Perhaps it wasn't Australia after all that I was thinking of, or perhaps you misunderstood. I meant where, on your ballot, instead of picking the one you want, you rank them all first to last.

We should go back to the way the first couple presidents/vice presidents were elected:

The candidate who received the most votes became president.
The candidate who received second most votes became vice-president.

This was independent of party affiliation.

Yes, a system virtually guaranteeing the president and vice president oppose each other is a great idea. That's why we kept it for so long.

[Lachrymose]

Yes, a system virtually guaranteeing the president and vice president oppose each other is a great idea. That's why we kept it for so long.

Yes, hence the "Could you imagine? "