It seems that our politicians vote by party lines and not by their constituents or even their own opinions. Do you think our country would be better if we did not have political parties?
Do you think our country would be better if we did not have political parties?
08/07/2012
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
no, party labels create useful shortcuts for voters. someone voting for a democrat, who has no other information knows that the person is probably (but not necessarily) pro-choice, in favor of government regulation and government healthcare, to name a few. without labels it's possible that we'd elect people without knowing anything about their policies or positions. consider independent candidate and current front runner for maine's senate seat angus king. Despite being governor for 8 years it's unclear hat his policies would be, what his positions are and even which party he would caucus with if elected. parties are useful shortcuts for voters and commitments for politicians.
08/07/2012
Quote:
The thing is that political parties make it easier for people, and help to get someone to represent the two different sides of a 'democratic republic.' If we didn't have parties we'd have a primary with thousands of applicants, and those who won that would be 30 entirely independent people on the final ballot. It also would make it so that only the RITCHEST RITCH could afford a campaign, where parties tend to help back people who may not be super affluent.
Originally posted by
Terri69
It seems that our politicians vote by party lines and not by their constituents or even their own opinions. Do you think our country would be better if we did not have political parties?
While it would be nice, people just would't have time to read up on every single independent applicant at the primary, and I have a feeling we'd end up with the final voting be on the people with the neatest name/who were at the top of the list.
08/07/2012
No to getting rid of parties, but it would be better if we had more than two parties. T&A1987 is right in that parties make it easier for voters, but so many people vote for parties today rather than actual issues. Our current system also makes it difficult as a third party member not only to get elected, but to get anything done while in office.
I think the two party system is too polarizing and excludes the ideas of too many voters. George Washington warned against a two party system in his farewell address, and the country should have listened then. We would have to reshape the way the government is run if we want to change the system today.
I think the two party system is too polarizing and excludes the ideas of too many voters. George Washington warned against a two party system in his farewell address, and the country should have listened then. We would have to reshape the way the government is run if we want to change the system today.
08/07/2012
Another big problem is how rarely people get involved in the primary process. Primary elections usually get about 16% turnout, despite the fact that sometimes there's a substantial difference between two (or three or four) people of the same party. It seems that too often citizens only make their voices heard on election day and then they are confused at why politicians don't listen.
08/07/2012
Not as much as finding a way to make everyone vote. As is, too many of the people who vote in elections are fringe voters, and we get really polarized candidates.
08/08/2012
No parties means 1 party - as in China. Parties are a necessary evil. People need to know whose beliefs and values are closest to their own.
08/08/2012
The founding fathers were adamantly against political parties.
08/08/2012
Quote:
That doesn't mean that they were right.
Originally posted by
G&L
The founding fathers were adamantly against political parties.
08/10/2012
No to getting rid of political parties, yes to getting rid of the two-party system. I'm surprised you've let it go on for this long.
08/10/2012
Total posts: 10
Unique posters: 8