Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why can't we just live by our Constitution and eliminate parties?
I'm an anarcho-capitalist (which is a branch of Libertarianism), so I support Libertarians. In some cases, I will support conservatives, but it depends on their views on some issues. I would like to see the Libertarian Party doing more to get somebody into office. I will vote for anybody who opposes unnecessary wars and supports social freedoms and small government. Lower taxes as well.
Please, corrupt unions that are led by people that have forgotten what it is to work for a living and are more concerned with gaining the respect of the industrialists on a social level are part of the problem. Union leaders that still remember working 10 hour a day for increasingly worthless money are not part of the problem they are the solution for 99% of the world's people.
I could go on about farmers spending most of their time working to pay the mortgage on the machinery instead of profit for the family but I think you get the point.
When I take an objective look at both our parties, I see some good and some idiotic things. To me, neither party really represents the common person with both word & deed. We know that. Add to that it seems both parties are nearly awash in internal issues of corruption and gross imorality that damages the party.
So I ask myself, if neither party truly represents their platform honestly and since they strive for arrogant power & opportunities of corruption, why haven't any third party taken more of a hold?
To be sure, one reason is that these types of grass root movements rarely seem to start with quality candidates for president, but one would think they could start at more of a statewide or possibly US House of Rep level and really speak with genuine honesty and conviction.
Another is that people are so easily led. We believe what we are told to by the media, unions, religous or special interest groups (all of which seek their own political power by falsehoods). I've looked and these enteties very carefully, subscribed to their newsletters, reviewed their websites... and the pure crap they spew makes me wonder why anyone would possibly believe them. It's so blantant- and also a money grab.
I, for one, would welcome a couple more parties. Serious ones that have a definitive platform and good people to promulgate it. But the ones I've looked into so far are either space cadet city or only speak to a very fringe group of people.
It has nothing to do with the parties, and everything to do with the wasted vote syndrome that gets evangelized by the two dominate parties. Replace plurality voting for electors with approval voting for electors and you'd see a completely different outcome.
It has nothing to do with the parties, and everything to do with the wasted vote syndrome that gets evangelized by the two dominate parties. Replace plurality voting for electors with approval voting for electors and you'd see a completely different outcome.
If the Electoral College was REQUIRED to vote the will of the people...which they are not...it might make a difference.
If the Electoral College was REQUIRED to vote the will of the people...which they are not...it might make a difference.
There have been faithless electors, but we haven't seen an election decided by the electors choosing to go against the plural vote that they represent.
Assume the Libertarian party won the vote for the state of NH, it wouldn't be democrat or republicans chosen as electors to vote in the college... it would be delegates chosen from the Libertarian party. So there's no real reason to believe that the two dominant parties would have much of a say.
But there's no reason the current leaders would move to a voting system that would put them at a disadvantage... it limits their power and influence.
Why can't we just live by our Constitution and eliminate parties?
I'm an anarcho-capitalist (which is a branch of Libertarianism), so I support Libertarians. In some cases, I will support conservatives, but it depends on their views on some issues. I would like to see the Libertarian Party doing more to get somebody into office. I will vote for anybody who opposes unnecessary wars and supports social freedoms and small government. Lower taxes as well.
Ron Paul is running for the wrong party, lol.
Perhaps because the US Constitution supports and protects those political parties. As long as the 1st Amendment protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" there will always be political parties.
The constitution doesnt protect political parties. It protects your right to form or maintain one but you can certainly abandon them if theyre broke, & they are.
Theyre simply political mechanisms that buisness & special interest groups use to further whatever agenda theyre for.
I, too, am opposed to political parties. They serve a purpose initially, but eventually, like unions and other organizations get a) too big and b) corrupted by power, money, and corporations. The main reason why we won't see a third party is that the other two spend enormous amounts of energy fighting any competition. If they can't control the third party, they won't be able to control the elections or us. The only difference between the US and the former USSR is that our party has two heads while theirs had one. At least the USSR was honest about its totalitarianism!
There have been faithless electors, but we haven't seen an election decided by the electors choosing to go against the plural vote that they represent.
Assume the Libertarian party won the vote for the state of NH, it wouldn't be democrat or republicans chosen as electors to vote in the college... it would be delegates chosen from the Libertarian party. So there's no real reason to believe that the two dominant parties would have much of a say.
But there's no reason the current leaders would move to a voting system that would put them at a disadvantage... it limits their power and influence.
We saw it in Hayes v. Tilden and Bush v. Gore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
