Whats wrong with parties?

[jackfaire]

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?

The problem isn't in someone being a Republican or Democrat because of what their ideals are it is the people who hold certain ideals because they are a Republican or Democrat.

There are plenty of people out there saying this, "Well I didn't think there was really anything wrong with Gay Marriage but my party says it will hurt me so okay I am against it"

The problem with parties is that it isn't about saying, "My ideals are this"

I personally do not belong to a party because there is no Jack Faire Party there is no "We agree with everything you believe and thus when you tell people you belong to us they won't think your against things your really for"

If someone identifies as Republican but believes in Gay Marriage being a right and thinks it should be so then identifying as Republican doesn't say that to people.

You remember high school? That's what Parties are.

If you identified as Jock but were in theater productions it confused people because jocks aren't drama geeks.

People hear the label and your ideals no longer matter because now your party's ideals are your ideals. Also by affiliating yourself with a Party your agreeing that what they say is what you say. So if they tell the American people to screw off you just told the American people to screw off regardless if that's how you really believe.

In the immortal words of Groucho Marx, " I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member"

[BlaqueKatt]

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.

You forgot trying to out the other guy as "not as smart/good/righteous as me..."

See Rick Santorum.....I honestly think he's crazier than Bachman and Palin, and he only just lost the primaries....Please Canada...if he gets elected...invade us and take over...

[SongsOfDragons]

I feel for the RED OR BLUE, CHOOSE!!! thing you lovely Yanks have to put up with.

In the UK we have many, many more than two parties... *watches the glares of many intelligences being insulted* Love you really. ^^;;

Well, basically, how I see parties is that some guys have a great set of ideas for how a country/county/school/group should be run, get more people on board, and then I believe it becomes like the old adage 'Too many cooks spoil the broth'. The result is a great big mess.

Of the main six in the UK...well the three who rotate in and out of power just prove useless, and of the secondary three one is also useless, one's annoyingly and wallbangingly racist and the last are a bunch of fancy-pants republic-wanting wankers. (IMO only!!) But we have others who get a smattering of votes each election. Monster Raving Looneys might be still around, don't know; but I have seen a Roman party somewhere. I like voting, so I'll see what weirdos are around...

I have also learned - from the last General election and especially the referendum on the Alternative Vote - that nobody will like who you vote for and will yell at you before the vote and pronounce you as stupid after the results are in, so the best bet is to tell no-one your voting specifics. :P

[protege]

See Rick Santorum.....I honestly think he's crazier than Bachman and Palin, and he only just lost the primaries....Please Canada...if he gets elected...invade us and take over...

I'm just glad that Santorum no longer represents Pennsylvania. Especially after he didn't even live here...yet somehow was getting school vouchers for his kids...who live and go to school in Virginia. He was able, because he listed his primary residence as being in Penn Hills. Never mind that he lives in VA, and *rented out* the Penn Hills home. He also pissed me off with some of the comments he made about the Catholic church's sex scandal. But, until then, it wasn't really known what he was really like--the local media paid very little attention to him. It was only after the Iraq War (and Santorum's links to GWB, because of it), that people started paying attention to what he was doing. By then, anything Republican was seen as "bad" and he was tossed from office. Can't really say that voters made a mistake there. Good riddance, asshole.

[HYHYBT]

This seems relevant, somehow...
http://www.docrat.com.au/default.asp...&thisitem=1076

[Ginger Tea]

I'm not sure on the rest of Europe, but we handle the party/leader elections differently to the US, when Blair stepped down and Brown took office, one poster stated that he "never voted gorden clown into office."
Thing is he did (if he voted Labour that is), we vote the party into power and whom ever is leading the party leads the country, so our leader 'abdicating' or dying whilst in power would not cause a reelection or anything (save for death and that would only be their constituency seat)

The MP's within the houses of parliment vote on the issues (as I'm assuming congress does) but we don't get as loggerheaded as you seem to be, althoguh some of the more important bills seem to have few and far between MP's actually there to take the vote.

[senor boogie woogie]

The problem with the two party system is that they have a monopoly on power. It is very difficult for someone who is not a member of one of the two political parties to win a staewife or national election. It does happen occasionally, (like Jesse Ventura) but over 99% are won by one of the two parties.

The two party system has been around since the birth of the country. Only George Washington was not a member of a political party, but he was associated with the Federalist Party, which elected John Adams in 1796. The Federalists lost the Presidency to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party in 1800. The Federalists died out, then reformed as the Whig Party, which sort of died out and morphed back into what is now the Republican Party. The first GOP candidate was a man named Fremont in 1856. They won with Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

The Democratic-Republicans more or less shortened their name to Democrats. Offically, their first President was Andrew Jackson in 1828, but they will argue with merit that the party stretches back to Thomas Jefferson.

There have been attempts since the early 1800's to the modern day to have a "third party" into the mix. Liberty Party, Free Soilers, Know Nothing, Socialists, Progressives, Dixiecrats, Reform Party, there have been many attempts and they all fail, usually after one election. The political game has been rigged in favor of the two party system since the beginning, especially when it comes to Presidential elections. One must win the majority of the electors (270). If no one does this, then the election gets thrown to the US House of Representitives, which would not vote for the third party candidate and more or less would vote down party lines.

There is too much outside money coming into political campaigns. Lobbyists trying to curry favor, who will give money to both camps. The political parties act in collusion with each other for the money and the power and it doesn't much matter who is voted in, the same things are going to happen anyway. The political parties offer two candidates, with little else to turn to if the first two candidates sucks.

Many times, people do not vote for the person that they like, but vote for the one they dislike least, or to keep the one they dislike more from being re-elected. I will vote for Romney because I am voting against Obama not that I like Romney. Other voters will vote for Obama, not because of his achievements, but because they dont want another GOP, white guy running things.

I would like to see more parties, more opinions and a strict limit on moneys as not to curry and bribe favors with winning candidates. That is the real problem.

[jackfaire]

I think with the creation of the WWW that the Two Party system is over in theory.

I say in theory because people have a blind spot.

For example a friend of mine got online on her computer and posted to her facebook account, "This sucks my PS3 won't connect to the internet right now so I can't stream Netflix"

I face palmed so hard I almost knocked myself out. She was on a device that could stream Netflix using the internet through which she could stream Netflix complaining that she couldn't stream Netflix.

This is the problem we are having. Everyone is "Well my guy never gets elected because he can't afford all of the TV air time"

This complaint is often made on the largest communications network in the world.

The internet has saved TV shows from the cancellation list and yet people don't make the connection that even a campaign that exists only online could get a politician elected.

Parties no longer have meaning when we the people can take control of someone's campaign and spread the message of our favored candidates with the click of a mouse.

Hell I emailed 3 local candidates about why I wouldn't be voting for them and why their informational websites need to change.

Your sitting on the most powerful communications tool that dwarfs News Papers, Television, and cuts across socioeconomic lines.

Use it.

[Panacea]

Politicians seem to suffer from a knack for reading what they want to read in mail from their constituents.

For example, I wrote to my senator, Richard Burr, opposing legislation that would essentially gut Poison Control Centers.

He sends me back a smarmy letter telling me how wonderful Poison Control Centers are . . . and how proud he was that he voted for the legislation that would gut funding for Poison Control Centers.

Yeah, I won't be voting for him when he comes up for re-election in 2 years.

[jackfaire]

Politicians seem to suffer from a knack for reading what they want to read in mail from their constituents.

I diagrammed what as a voter was wrong with the websites of the three different candidates for city council for my district and emailed each of them explaining how they could improve their websites.

Of the three one ignored me, One sent me back a reply saying voters want rhetoric, sound bites and what he has done for jobs and his family because voters care more about that stuff than what he is going to do while in office.

The third and amusingly the only one that I didn't agree with on any of the issues was the only one that actually not only listened to my ideas but wanted to discuss them in more depth.