No Parties

[Benwa]

WB wrote on one of these post that my politics can't be categorised. which I think is tru. For a while I thought I was anarchist, but realised I'm not anti-gov't I'm just anti-shitty gov't. I'm not republican although theres a few republican ideas I agree with, like being smart with your money. I'm not really democrat, but I'm drawn to the progressive quality of it (If only it would return again). So I looked a third parties. Libertarians seem to make sense but I can't buy into the "let the market decide". That seems like saying 'lets led greed figure it out". And the greens seem a little too self righteous. And really I don't think we need more division which is what we'd get from third parties.

So here's my idea. What if we did away with political parties all together. Have a group of individuals run. Example: pick some representative for president locally/state or regional level. Maybe regional would be best. whatever, but progressivly have more elimination elections. Until its down to two or three then have the big one. Give each candidate a limit of how much airtime and money spent or whatever to even the field. Streamline debates to actually talk about issue. A real debate where they can address eachother.

Does this idea make sense? What problems will be with eliminating parties. Is there any benefit to having parties?

[Skyblade]

Sounds interesting. In a weird way, it kind of reminded me of like a Miss America pageant.

[kitalyn414]

swimsuit competition anyone?!? ;)

[Skyblade]

Originally posted by kitalyn414
swimsuit competition anyone?!? ;) :eek:

Don't know if i'd want to see that.

[Benwa]

Please blast my idea apart. What weaknesses are in it so I can modify it. What changes would you like to see. I'm not satisfied with the way its done now. and I'm looking for a solution.

Alot of decision making institutions use a similar process of elimination (like beauty pagents, talent contest, spelling bees). If its used so often then it must be a psychologically satisfying and fair method of decision making.

[Skyblade]

I remember when I was little and I used to hear about the "presidential race" I thought they actual raced eachother to be president.

[Pink Hat]

You sound like a left-wing libertarian. There's a progressive branch of the Democrats. Maybe you'd fit in there.

As for the no-party idea, I don't think it would work in reality. People like to feel like they belong in a group. At least, that's my perceptions of things.

[personalegend]

You sound exactly like a friend I have...hmm....maybe you are him Benwa. we just had a discussion about this.

First off, I totally agree with your statement that this system really needs some help. Grouping ourselves into a term and thinking that term represents everything we believe is frustrating and un-productive. Because I vote Democrat, does not mean that I agree with its entire platform or that I love where the candidate stands on all the issues. I would even abandon the Democrat label if there happened to be a Republican or Green Party candidate that I believe in more......

However, my guess would be that eliminating parties would be difficult. For a time it might work, but I think that after awhile people tend to use labels as a way to distinguish themselves and their beliefs from others. So it seems like an inevitable occurrance that eventually we are going to make a category for these candidates. I dunno, let me think about it some more....it would be incredibly refreshing to have a new system....

[Crimson King II]

What problems would we have? I don't know? Violations of First Amendment rights of Free Association? Just for starters...

Don't like political parties? Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. Stop wasting our time.

[pisces2473]

CK--do you see the American political system as something that is perpetually solid, or do you think it should change in some way? Several of your posts seem to allude to you thinking that it should be as rigid as the Framers intended. I'm not out to get you, I'm just curious.

[Crimson King II]

I think the structure of government should be fairly rigid and slow to change...dual sovereignty, strict separation of powers, the electoral college in place, constructionist judges, and a strong congress rather than an imperial presidency.

That said, I think the political system is always changing, and that's fine. I consider this structure much different than one of government...discourse is good, there should be rise and fall of various movements and parties so long as that happens on the basis of discourse.

As for this topic, the Founders did not believe in political parties. Jefferson hated political parties and thought the government should protect against them. Then came the 1800 election...Jefferson wanted to win and said, "A party for me might not be so bad..." Then we were off and running. I don't have a problem with the parties. I DO have a problem with them trying to game the system, which they both do...that does not contribute to discourse or competition...which the framers were for. I think our systems are precious and should remain true to their origin.

Does that give you any answer?

[pisces2473]

Yes, it does. Thanks :)

[lostindc]

The problem with political parties (at least the way they are currently structured) is that they have an absolute duopoly on politics. Nonestablished parties can't get any traction (because the two parties will just manipulate/rewrite the rules to crush them if they did make any headway). For example automatic runoff elections (where you rank your top X choices instead of voting for 1 candidate) isn't a bad idea though it will never be seen since the two parties in control would never pass it since it would threaten their power. And therein lies the major problem with Benwa's idea: it requires the two major parties to relinquish most of their power - and they will never do that.