What would happen if we eliminated political parties?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Axman

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
681
Location
Golden Valley, AZ
Normally I don't like to participate in a political debate but I was wondering about something. If we just eliminated political parties entirely and just voted for a candidates views instead of political affiliation, would it work? If a candidate is pro 2A, for instance, he would get the vote instead of voting for a Republican because they are generally pro gun.
 
Interesting idea, but I seriously doubt very many would leave behind the current BS for it...
 
I'm not sure how you could.

People have a right to associate with those of like mind.

Political parties are like corporations in that they are mechanisms for efficiently providing resources to a group of people in order to achieve a desired end.

Even if you did away with them tommorow something similar would spring up to replace them. For a candidate, running within the framework of a party is a lot easier than going it alone as there are experienced, well-funded people to manage all the things that go into a candidacy.

For fundraisers it is oft times easier to raise money by getting people to donate to a platform of issues than it is to an individual candidate, especially before there is a candidate for any particular office.
 
There is an anarchist idea of randomly choosing candidates for elections.. to the legislature for example..
(by a lottery).

Cynics say that we would have better lawmakers then..
(my country's legislature are mostly crooks )
 
There is an anarchist idea of randomly choosing candidates for elections.. to the legislature for example..
(by a lottery).

Cynics say that we would have better lawmakers then..
(my country's legislature are mostly crooks )
Click to expand...


Total randomness would be a hoot. It would not matter so much as the permanent government, that is all the government employees, actually run things.
 
This day and age you need a political machine. If its Democrat or republican, or even some form of independent candidates movement, you need alot of people and alot of money to be elected.
Having one organization used to elect multiple candidates has historically worked better in the US than trying to form dozens of machines.

What would happen if you outlaw the machine? I'd wager the man with the most money would win. Which means your rep would probably be the one fronted by the wealthiest groups or individuals in your town.
Pick the candidate, give him some buttersoft and massively overpaid position in a big company, then turn him loose to pound any lesser competition into the ground.
 
What would happen if you eliminated political parties?

Well, I'll tell you.

The right to form political parties is protected by the 1st amendment "right of the people to peacably assemble".

So, to do away with parties, you'd have to do away with the first amendment.

The first amendment was a CONDITION of ratification of the constitution.

If you do away with 1A, (or any other of the Bill of Rights), the Constitution goes with it, all bets are off, states justifiably start secession proceedings, chaos and civil war ensues.

Congratulations, the Republic just burst into flames.

Tinkering with fundamentals....it's not for amateurs. Heck, it's not for professionals, either.
 
What's the difference between a political party and a mob organisation?

Problem with politics is, that it shouldn't be done by those who want to do it.
... power hungry people ..
But.. no one devised a better system yet.

My crazy idea for improving quality of politicans is taking away the right to vote from most people.*
And only giving it to those, who can demonstrate good reading skills, and the ability to think logically, analyze text, mention what is suspicious .. and so on.

Also, confining propaganda* to text. No TV or radio campaigning. No video. No pictures, no photo ops.
*it's called spin today

*or at least those, who are on some kind of welfare. Either corporate or social.
 
I would...

DECLARE MYSELF THE MIGHTY KING OF THE MIGHTY GUN LOVING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! HAIL TO THE KING POLAK! HAIL TO HANDGUNS! HAIL TO SHOTGUNS! HAIL TO ASSAULT TIFLES!

IN GUNS WE TRUST!
LONG LIVE THE KING ARMED-POLAK!
:evil: :evil: :evil:
 
Original founders hoped to avoid political parties (faction as they called it.) That is why the Consitution makes no mention of partys. The party system evolved out of the efforts of Secretary of State Jefferson and allies (eventually the Democratic Republican party) to combat the "pernicious" influence of Hamilton, whose activities as Secretary of Treasury and apparent holder of the ear of President Washington, seemed to them to be moving the government in a "monarchical" direction. Those who favored Hamilton's ideas became the Federalists.

Y.T.- The founders wanted the "better" element to do the voting. Voting requirements were set by individual states and through the 1820's were generally that you had to be white, male, over 21, and own a certain amount of land where you voted. The land ownership requirement was the first to fall by the wayside.
You were also typically required to step forth on election day and verbally announce your vote. (Hence the common practice of buying votes, since the buyer would get to hear if you followed through on the agreement.)
 
Political parties are not the problem. The problem is the voting system and (secondarily) the vast amount of money spent on election advertising.

I have no problem with debates where issues are actually discussed. I have a major problem with political advertising, but it's protected by the first amendment.

The only thing left to do is change the voting system to Range voting. Nothing else is going to make a difference, long-term.

http://www.rangevoting.org
http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo...electorama.com
 
Eliminate the official political parties and people will spontaneously organize themselves into less formal confederations that for all intents and purposes would be parties.
 
Imho..

the current state of affairs is good for the people who want power over others.
Propaganda rules, emotions win over reason most of the time...

Czech Republic is currently in a state of deadlock.. The conservative won 74 votes, catholics 13, social Democrats 74 (currently headed by an extremely repulsive but deft demagogue. My uncle is a member of that party, though ... he claims that Paroubek's unofficial speeches are about as rabid as Hitler's were. )

81+13+6 = 74 + 26

Hardline communists won 26. (Though they aren't always bad on a local level)

The Green party won 6. (Somewhat sensible. I think they don't even oppose nuclear energy)

The idiot professor who was given the task to write a new constituion after communism fell should hang himself now. Why should there be an even number of representatives?

The result is 9 months of dirty politics ... everyone is fed up.
(a great moment was, when Paroubek managed to convince (how I don't know) the leader of the catholic party(total opposite politically ) to offer him support. The regional organisation then unanimously wanted their leader's head on a plate. He resigned immediately.

Throw in some mob connection accusations, a leaked secret report alleging that Paroubek has friends in the mob, and had sex with a 13 yr old girl. From the head of state anti-organized crime department.

Fecal tanks are less murky.
 
Actually, we'd get better results by eliminating politicians! Of course that would be just as impossible as eliminating political parties.
 
As has been said candidates would gravitate toward on another or the richest would win.

Politics is much more complex than when the country was formed. One issue candidates don't stand a chance of winning anywhere in this country. Given a choice with a candidate that is 100% pro-gun, wants higher taxes and wants to create a government that imposes as much as possible with you private life I'd vote for the guy who's 90% pro-gun and against all those other things.
 
How would they know which parties to allow on the ballot?

Currently many states have ballot access denial laws. I would prefer having more choices but there are those that despise that idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Party politics
Replies
13
Views
443
JesseJames
J
G
  • Locked
Why are people so attached to their party?
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
joe sixpack
J
M
  • Locked
Two New Political Parties Formed in Colorado
Replies
13
Views
716
brookstexas
B
R
  • Locked
Third party candidates
2
Replies
33
Views
930
General Geoff
General Geoff
D
  • Locked
What can we do NOW for 2008?
Replies
9
Views
601
50 Shooter
5
Back
Top