Should we do away with the Party system and make Canadates run on their own Standings.?

Answer 1

Most assurdly. but, then most would never be in office.

I think tht to run for office, you must have a PROVEN record of Integrity, and Honesty, with no background of scandle.

Answer 2

I think that would be a great idea. Realistically in a Presidential election either a Democrat or a Republican is going to win. Even if a third-party candidate is great, there just aren't enough people willing to vote that way. In essence, this limits our options to two "possible" choices.

What happens when neither is that great? Or when a candidate must align with one side or the other, rather than creating a unique platform? For instance, a candidate who believes in the death penalty, and abortion, and lower taxes for the rich. Not that I necessarily agree with all of these things, but it would allow people to vote for the person they really align with rather than whatever political party has the "most" good points. I had this problem in the 2004 election. I didn't particularly like either Bush or Kerry too much, but that's it, one or the other. There just aren't enough viable options.

In addition, here in Texas, during elections (and I'm sure all over the country) there was a Democratic sweep. Not because anybody knew most candidates, but because there is an uproar against Bush, thus Republicans and people just voted straight ticket Demo. Alot of great people lost their jobs, judges, district attorneys, etc. just because they were Republican and people are mad at Bush. That seems unfair.

One last thing, sorry this is so horribly long. I think they should also do away with straight ticket voting. People should be forced to make intelligent elections based on each candidate, not just on the political party they agree with most. This would require research and would take a lot longer during elections, but it would create a more balances and educated process.

Answer 3

I don't know how that would be possible, since the party is simply a group of people with similar beliefs... I mean, what makes someone a Republican or Democrat is their views of the platforms...

I think taking away the LABEL of being one or the other would make it a bit more interesting...

Answer 4

Short answer, YES. And not a one part system, a no party system. Tax dollars to fund campaigning. No more lobbyist. All tax changes by public vote.

The revolution starts now!

Answer 5

sounds like a good idea, in theory. BUT, we would end up with the media still playing the cons vs lib game, and people who only vote party being too confused to vote. not that, that wouldn't be a good thing, but it would mean even less voters, and less representation of the majority.

Answer 6

I would go along with that!! I stand somewhere in the middle anyway and don't know which way to go so I just go independent. That would make it so much simpler and like our Governor is a Democrat and votes with the Republicans half the time anyway.

Answer 7

Yes, but that will never happen. The Dems and Reps have way to much power. That's why Independants, Green Party, etc have no power and rarely even get in on debates and news media. Just won't happen, but it should!

Answer 8

That is a great idea. Actually, there are other parties out there, they are just not even competition for teh big 2. While we're at it, lets do away with the defective electoral college. One man, one vote.

Answer 9

maybe - i would certainly support some method of opening up the process.
end all soft money and limit all donations - maybe take away the tax deduction????
change the debate process to include smaller parties and to allow participation by the voters (not moderators or SELECTED questions).

Answer 10

I'm not so sure it's about party standings moreso than it's about where the candidates get their funding from and which lobbyists own them.