Change of Government: Hypothetical Question

No, America would be better if there were no political parties at all. Too many vote for the person representing the party they belong to without actually looking at what they are planning on doing.

Vote for a candidate, NOT a party.

 
JJHusker1 said:
Party affiliation was intended to sort of pre-seperate some basic ideological differences (which they still do) but, I think the rationale for that was so we could fall back to picking a party as opposed to the specific person.
Click to expand...
No, parties are a natural power structure whereby people with shared interests pool together their efforts and resources.

There is no way to eliminate parties.

And for those of us concerned with or tired with political shenanigans, I don't see how more parties would be a solution to that problem.

I feel our system is pretty good. We have to settle for inefficiencies and political gameplay, but like I said, it's part of the deal. We have a system of checks and balances and the parties are no different. It's stable and that's valuable.

 
zoogies said:
JJHusker1 said:
Party affiliation was intended to sort of pre-seperate some basic ideological differences (which they still do) but, I think the rationale for that was so we could fall back to picking a party as opposed to the specific person.
Click to expand...
No, parties are a natural power structure whereby people with shared interests pool together their efforts and resources.

There is no way to eliminate parties.

And for those of us concerned with or tired with political shenanigans, I don't see how more parties would be a solution to that problem.

I feel our system is pretty good. We have to settle for inefficiencies and political gameplay, but like I said, it's part of the deal. We have a system of checks and balances and the parties are no different. It's stable and that's valuable.
Click to expand...
i agree, but i don't. it is hard to limit parties, but there should be more. there are 300 million americans and two parties to represent them. we are far more diverse in thought, interests, and experiences than that.

 
There are a lot more than 2 parties. The thing is the other parties are less powerful, for a variety of natural/inertia reasons that aren't really part of the setup, I *think*, it just evolved this way. There's nothing really preventing those parties from becoming more popular other than a lack of support.

And, keep in mind, two parties doesn't mean total unity of ideals -- look at Ron Paul, Republican, or even Mitt Romney, and how much the Republicans really didn't want that guy.

There is plenty of diversity of ideas and interests even within any given party, which is why we, as individual voters, should look past party platforms an at individual candidates on their own merits.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A big issue with getting beyond the two party system, is the two parties have set up hurdles for 3rd parties to even get on ballots. Campaign finance is another barrier. The two parties have pretty much rigged the system.

 
strigori said:
A big issue with getting beyond the two party system, is the two parties have set up hurdles for 3rd parties to even get on ballots. Campaign finance is another barrier. The two parties have pretty much rigged the system.
Click to expand...
exactly, there is a difference between bipartisan and nonpartisan.

 
Back
Top