Political Parties (Congress, legal, attorneys, suspect)

[SA Duckhunter]

Can someone here tell me why we need political parties? I truly believe they do more harm than good.

[coastalrap]

The only people who needs a political party are ignorant voters and crooked politicians.

[dcsldcd]

It would be better if everyoe registered as an Independent. Keep them guessing!

[DC at the Ridge]

Political parties actually serve multiple purposes. First of all, campaigning for political office can be an expensive proposition as well as time-consuming. Political parties help with the expenses, fund-raising and organizational challenges. They actually provide structure to the election process, and they do it as private organizations rather than as public organizations. The assistance they provide allows an optometrist to run for Congress, or a dentist, or a homemaker who would otherwise probably not run for office because of the inability to raise the necessary funds as well as the skills to conduct a campaign. Instead of just rich people who can afford campaign managers and pollsters and so on, political parties often enable schoolteachers or florists to run for office.

We didn't originally have political parties. They grew over the initial conflict over how strong and big the federal government should be. That was the original partisan issue. That issue was so divisive to early Americans that people running for office clearly identified themselves as federalists or states-rights supporters. Printers who printed up early ballots grouped candidates according to issues. Like-minded people formed what were essentially clubs around the issue which, by its nature, tied to other issues, like whether the government should form a national bank, or where the national capitol should be if it were not in a state how its residents should be represented. Where should the Vice-President's office be?

Even if we dissolved the political parties today, people would still organize around various issues and seek ways to identify themselves and the candidates according to their positions on those issues. And if we dissolved the political parties today, we would have to determine as a people how campaigns would be funded, and a host of rules about who could purchase campaign advertising, what sort of restrictions would be on that content and so on.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Political parties actually serve multiple purposes. First of all, campaigning for political office can be an expensive proposition as well as time-consuming. Political parties help with the expenses, fund-raising and organizational challenges. They actually provide structure to the election process, and they do it as private organizations rather than as public organizations. The assistance they provide allows an optometrist to run for Congress, or a dentist, or a homemaker who would otherwise probably not run for office because of the inability to raise the necessary funds as well as the skills to conduct a campaign. Instead of just rich people who can afford campaign managers and pollsters and so on, political parties often enable schoolteachers or florists to run for office.

We didn't originally have political parties. They grew over the initial conflict over how strong and big the federal government should be. That was the original partisan issue. That issue was so divisive to early Americans that people running for office clearly identified themselves as federalists or states-rights supporters. Printers who printed up early ballots grouped candidates according to issues. Like-minded people formed what were essentially clubs around the issue which, by its nature, tied to other issues, like whether the government should form a national bank, or where the national capitol should be if it were not in a state how its residents should be represented. Where should the Vice-President's office be?

Even if we dissolved the political parties today, people would still organize around various issues and seek ways to identify themselves and the candidates according to their positions on those issues. And if we dissolved the political parties today, we would have to determine as a people how campaigns would be funded, and a host of rules about who could purchase campaign advertising, what sort of restrictions would be on that content and so on.

Yet today, our politics and political parties are dominated not by school teachers, optometrist or even well educated business minded people, but instead by a gaggle of lawyers, attorneys, and affluent families.

While I agree it is only natural that groups or political parties form around ideas, concepts, goals, and political philosophy, it is becoming less so today. I assert that much of the purpose of our current political establishment is more focused on a perpetuation of the establishment itself than the ideas which they were based up initially.

While we currently have many political parties in the United States, we are almost entirely dominated by only two as though two basic philosophies could encapsulate 300+ million people. The two predominate parties spend great effort and resources in preventing other parties the platform to have their cases made through ballot restrictions. There is a great need to reform the process in which political parties are allowed to function, given access to media air time and ballot access. If we wish to have optometrist, professors and business educated people in government, then once again make political parties about groups of people who share similar ideas and philosophies on issues instead of trying to condense it down to a binary and overly simplistic manner.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

Yet today, our politics and political parties are dominated not by school teachers, optometrist or even well educated business minded people, but instead by a gaggle of lawyers, attorneys, and affluent families.

While I agree it is only natural that groups or political parties form around ideas, concepts, goals, and political philosophy, it is becoming less so today. I assert that much of the purpose of our current political establishment is more focused on a perpetuation of the establishment itself than the ideas which they were based up initially.

While we currently have many political parties in the United States, we are almost entirely dominated by only two as though two basic philosophies could encapsulate 300+ million people. The two predominate parties spend great effort and resources in preventing other parties the platform to have their cases made through ballot restrictions. There is a great need to reform the process in which political parties are allowed to function, given access to media air time and ballot access. If we wish to have optometrist, professors and business educated people in government, then once again make political parties about groups of people who share similar ideas and philosophies on issues instead of trying to condense it down to a binary and overly simplistic manner.

Wasn't it dominated at the beginning by lawyers and affluent people? Representative governments tend to end up with people who are interested in making law (lots of lawyers are interested in making law) and people who have the means to campaign (affluent people are more likely to be able to free up blocs of time to travel and make speeches than factory workers). Political parties actually do give less affluent people a chance to run by providing resources.

The two-party system is a mechanism for stability, which is not a minor consideration when discussing dismantling that system. I don't think that coalition governments where numerous parties are involved in shifting alliances is necessarily a better government. My prejudices speaking here, I'm sure, because it seems that those alliances are formed behind the scenes, with little transparency. Then they are disbanded quite publicly, and with a crippling impact on effective government.

That said, the legal structure that the dominant parties have managed to construct on the state level that make it so much more difficult for third parties has contributed immensely to the political stagnation that I think we all sense. Pandering to political opinion rather than persuading the public has weakened both the parties. Getting rid of the impediments to other parties would vitalize the political process. Which would make it more representative and more democratic at the same time.

I just think that we can make tremendous process in that re-vitalization without wholesale discarding of our current system. Changing some of the laws on the state level, to expand ballot access, and to making ballot access for national office uniform across the country, changing how states select electors are not tremendous obstacles. They can be achieved, and I think that given current voter dissatisfaction, they might even be inevitable.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Wasn't it dominated at the beginning by lawyers and affluent people? Representative governments tend to end up with people who are interested in making law (lots of lawyers are interested in making law) and people who have the means to campaign (affluent people are more likely to be able to free up blocs of time to travel and make speeches than factory workers). Political parties actually do give less affluent people a chance to run by providing resources.

The two-party system is a mechanism for stability, which is not a minor consideration when discussing dismantling that system. I don't think that coalition governments where numerous parties are involved in shifting alliances is necessarily a better government. My prejudices speaking here, I'm sure, because it seems that those alliances are formed behind the scenes, with little transparency. Then they are disbanded quite publicly, and with a crippling impact on effective government.

That said, the legal structure that the dominant parties have managed to construct on the state level that make it so much more difficult for third parties has contributed immensely to the political stagnation that I think we all sense. Pandering to political opinion rather than persuading the public has weakened both the parties. Getting rid of the impediments to other parties would vitalize the political process. Which would make it more representative and more democratic at the same time.

I just think that we can make tremendous process in that re-vitalization without wholesale discarding of our current system. Changing some of the laws on the state level, to expand ballot access, and to making ballot access for national office uniform across the country, changing how states select electors are not tremendous obstacles. They can be achieved, and I think that given current voter dissatisfaction, they might even be inevitable.

first off, my apologies for not articulating myself better as after re-reading my post, I wish I had written it differently.

Yes it started off this way and throughout our history, it has been pushed and pulled either towards a more populist or more establishment oriented situation, depending upon the times and circumstances. (note just prior to the Great Depression and the 'gilded age of American politics and political machines')

I would never suggest that we abolish political parties, only level the playing field and offer better access to all political parties by the people. We as capitalist seem to very well understand the benefits of competition to the free markets and to ingenuity in general, yet when it comes to politics, we have a system that is entirely monopolized by only two parties. We can buy shoes from Czechoslovakia, we can buy a TV from Mexico, we can buy a car from Japan, or timber from Canada, but when it comes to the general election, we have only two viable choices. While we are certainly free to vote for other parties, as it stands in the US today, if you are a Libertarian or a Green, you are forced to either fight a near impossible battle to get a candidate on every ballot or vote for either Democrat or Republican that most closely shares your views. Both parties do everything in their power to maintain this and I will even be so bold as to suggest that commercial media outlets in the US also perpetuate this established system.

When I look to many European and world governments which often have a number of political parties espousing a variety of views in office and mainstreamed for elections, the result is a government that more accurately reflects the many views of the American people. In a multiple party system (more than 2) each party is forced to make a variety of concessions and compromises in order to better establish a consensus, which again, I feel more accurately would describe the American view.

Myself personally, I have to point out that I'm a former life long Republican of a more traditional flavor and don't buy into the whole evangelical aspect of today Republican Party, so I didn't leave the party, the party left me. Who is left that best represents my views which can agree with both current parties on various issues depending? I do not wish to box myself in with declarations of "I'm a Democrat or Republican" as then I'm expected to tout the party line which more often that not in both cases, I disagree with. I enjoy many of the views of Libertarians, but not all of them. I like what I see from the Constitutionalists, but not all of it, so I'm a person without a party which is fine. Yet, those third party types compromise a substantial number of American citizens and if they had equal access to the election process, I suspect we would see then in more numbers in our political process.

Competition is a healthy thing and I can think of no place where it is most needed than in our political system.

[António Oliveira Salazar]

by the polical parties at least in portugal we know what are the ideology of the partys . i preferer the nationalist partys.