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.
Many of us fully recognize the corruption and unproductive tribalism that practically defines these parties nowadays...
Why not just do away with political parties altogether? That way, politicians will have to run on their own merit, form their own stances and values, and voters might actually have to think for themselves for a change.
I know, I know...completely unrealistic due to the difficulties in funding and campaigning on an individual scale within such a large country, but would it be possible to at least move that direction?
Even not listing candidates' party on local election ballots is a good start, but it's still not enough.
I think we're slowly seeing a move in that direction among much of the population, but the very vocal party apologists of the two major parties have also been more aggressive to try to retain their power and then gain some.
As the OP mentioned, I can think of several instances when party affiliation is irrelevant or inappropriate. Examples (and this may vary from state to state- I'm thinking of how my state (NC) does this):
-Having a partisan sheriff's election. Why should it matter what a sheriff's personal politics is? They should be enforcing the law fairly, running their agencies appropriately, and being available to the communities they serve regardless of some of their own personal political viewpoints (which they're certainly free to have as long as this doesn't cloud the way they do their job/enforce the law).
-The same thought applies to other, even less visible elections, such as Register of Deeds or Soil and Water agency supervisor, as how they do their job is also completely irrelevant to political party. Does it make any sense that someone that's in one of these offices have a more "conservative" or "liberal" filing system, or use politics for running an agency that's largely based on performing set protocols efficiently and fairly? Why would that make any difference in how someone is expected to do their job while in office?
If those are going to be elected positions, they really should be non-partisan.
Most here see nothing wrong with the two party system thier wrong about them but for many it’s the devil they know, then the or they don’t.
I think OPs concern was about how the party system, when taken to an unproductive extreme, results in representatives forgetting that they are in office to represent citizens in their elected territory (and represent all citizens, not just those that share their partisan or ideological views).
When those politicians forget this and put their party against those they should be representing, and this happens in both major parties, things that need to get done don't get done.
Though the title implies it might be good to do away with political parties, it seems the dysfunction associated with placing too high of an emphasis on them is the issue, rather than the simple fact that they exist and give voters an idea of the political values a candidate is likely to hold.
I think OPs concern was about how the party system, when taken to an unproductive extreme, results in representatives forgetting that they are in office to represent citizens in their elected territory (and represent all citizens, not just those that share their partisan or ideological views).
When those politicians forget this and put their party against those they should be representing, and this happens in both major parties, things that need to get done don't get done.
Though the title implies it might be good to do away with political parties, it seems the dysfunction associated with placing too high of an emphasis on them is the issue, rather than the simple fact that they exist and give voters an idea of the political values a candidate is likely to hold.
It's also very limiting on those who run.
For example, here are some of my stances:
Anti-illegal migration
End the war on drugs
Lower taxes
Pro 2A
Pro-choice. (Don't try to restrict abortion, but don't go out the way to pay for others' abortions either)
Eliminate welfare for those who refuse to work, despite being able-bodied
Remove any government regulations that give health insurance companies too much power
Stop trying to police the world
Stop trying to be PC, just use common sense and don't actively antagonize any demographics
Anti-affirmative action in the public sector
Which party would I be categorized as? Neither party would accept my bundle of stances. Sure, I could run as an Independent, but they're eclipsed by the 2 major parties.
(And no, no way in hell would I ever become a politician LMAO... just using myself as an example to suggest that there are many people who could potentially being good ideas to the table, but instead have to pick a party to conform to)
Anti-illegal migration
End the war on drugs
Lower taxes
Pro 2A
Pro-choice. (Don't try to restrict abortion, but don't go out the way to pay for others' abortions either)
Eliminate welfare for those who refuse to work, despite being able-bodied
Remove any government regulations that give health insurance companies too much power
Stop trying to police the world
Stop trying to be PC, just use common sense and don't actively antagonize any demographics
Anti-affirmative action in the public sector
Which party would I be categorized as? Neither party would accept my bundle of stances. Sure, I could run as an Independent, but they're eclipsed by the 2 major parties.
(And no, no way in hell would I ever become a politician LMAO... just using myself as an example to suggest that there are many people who could potentially being good ideas to the table, but instead have to pick a party to conform to)
Unlike your "OP" your argument above is really why are we stuck with just the two "major" parties which in a large country of over 300 million people will naturally not represent everyone's views exactly.
The only third party to ever become a majority party in US history was the Republican Party. Since 1852, a candidate from the Republican or Democratic parties has placed either first or second in U.S. presidential elections, except for one (in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt, a popular former Republican president, ran as a “third-party” candidate).
Why is the US stuck with two major parties?
The answer is that the U.S. political system is set up for two major parties, because it awards seats in Congress and the presidency with a winner-take-all method. Candidates running for Congress need only to get a plurality of the vote to be elected. In 48 of 50 states, presidential candidates get all of a state’s electoral votes — the way in which presidents are elected, state by state — as long as they win a plurality of the vote in that state.
Anti-illegal migration
End the war on drugs
Lower taxes
Pro 2A
Pro-choice. (Don't try to restrict abortion, but don't go out the way to pay for others' abortions either) That one comes down to a woman's body, her choice, But I also am pro life.
Eliminate welfare for those who refuse to work, despite being able-bodied. Before Welfare is eliminated, it should also be treated like a job, you want 40 hours worth of pay, then you should perform 40 hours worth of work, that would could be digging ditches, it could be standing their directing traffic for road construction. It could be in the filling out forms to computerize business records. But no work no welfare.
Remove any government regulations that give health insurance companies too much power
Stop trying to police the world
Stop trying to be PC, just use common sense and don't actively antagonize any demographics
Anti-affirmative action in the public sector
Which party would I be categorized as? Neither party would accept my bundle of stances. Sure, I could run as an Independent, but they're eclipsed by the 2 major parties.
(And no, no way in hell would I ever become a politician LMAO... just using myself as an example to suggest that there are many people who could potentially being good ideas to the table, but instead have to pick a party to conform to)
Agree with most of you post, my answers are in RED.
I would add do away with Income Tax, and move instead to a National Sales Tax. Everybody buys things, and everybody would pay their fair share regardless of their income level.
Your link mentions about the Weimar Republic. That part of Germany, specifically the Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, is where the Weimaraner dog gets its name. Of course, we know those dogs from the "Sesame Street" skits by photographer William Wegman (DOB: 12/2/43). Now wonder it so dog-gone hard to address political party issues at times.
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.
