Who thinks we should do away with political parties?

Question

Really, I want to know if anyine thinks that would help our current political situation. I think we should get rid of, or at least have more political parties. Too often, America has to choose between the lesser of the two evils. I think it is very difficult to find a candidate that represents all of my beliefs, because they stick with what their party believes, which, as it turns out, eans your either antigay or progay, antilife or prolife, etc. You either one or the other.
Also, our politicians vote based on what their party thinks, not on what they think, nor by what the people they are representing think.
Plenty of good senators were passed up because of what party they affiliated themselves with this time around, and if there were no parties, maybe we would have some decent people in the government, rather than a bunch of people led by liars (on both sides) and ignorant people.

Just want to know what you all think about that.

I know candidates join parties because they basically agree with what their party stands for, but what about when a new issue arises? Like say Iraq, a lot of people said they were not pleased with their vote, looking back on it. I think they are under some pressure to vote with their party. Basically, they may disagree with some of the ways their party might implement their values.

Rudy4prez - you bring up another interesting idea, one that could really help save our ailing election system

Answer 1

I disagree with so many things in what you've said that it is hard to keep track of them all.

First of all, we already do have "more political parties." We already have a Libertarian Party and a Green Party and others. And if you do expand the number of parties, that doesn't automatically mean that we are going to have better candidates. If we had four nationally prominant political parties, that would probably just mean that we are choosing between the lesser of four evils instead of just the lesser of two evils!

If you find it difficult to find a candidate that represents all of your beliefs, join the club because most of us feel that way. But eliminating (or expanding the number of) parties still doesn't guarantee that one candidate who you feel fits you like a glove will automatically come out of the woodwork, either.

"Our politicians vote based on what their party think, not on what they think, nor by what the people they are representing think."
A drastic oversimplification. You're not taking into account that people join parties because they already do agree with most of what that party stands for. And the people vote for parties because of their agreement with what the parties stand for. I believe that there is a very high degree of consonance between how politicians are voting in Congress and what their constituents want. And for me the proof of that lies in the fact of a high degree of re-election of incumbents!

Answer 2

Well, if you want dramatic change, I have a different idea for you.... Get rid of primaries. You are absolutely correct that we frequently get stuck with lousy choices for president. However, I think the reason has to do with primaries, not because we have political parties.

Only Republicans can pick the Republican presidential candidate, and only Democrats can pick the Democratic presidential candidate. This is not news. However, most people don't realize how this changes things.

The existence of primaries means that instead of getting a moderate candidate from either party that is in the center of the WHOLE population, we get (at best), a candidate that is in the middle of their particular party, which means they are much more extreme than most people want. 2004 is a great example of this. John Kerry is from the most liberal state in America (Massachusets). Bush is from the most conservative (Texas). THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE!

There are lots of Democrats that might vote for a Senator McCain or Rudy Giulani because they are a centrist candidate, but they won't be picked by Republicans. Same thing for the Joe Lieberman's of the Democratic world. Get rid of primaries, and we might actually get candidates we want!

Answer 3

I think that parties need to exist in every country because of the party system. I think that we should open our elections to many parties by reforming our elections. How? We need to start by having fairer ballot access laws. I favor the Instant Runoff Voting system but not by itself. We need broad representation and that's why we need some type of proportional voting system (many other Americans favor the Single Transferable Vote, but they forget that most politicians won't favor it). Maybe a mixed system, something between that of Germany (Mixed Member Proportional system) and Japan (Parallel system) could work in the USA. It's OK to have parties and luckily not all politicians are party puppets so it depends. I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils at all and I find it a dud to our system. Many political analysts claim that the two-party system is protected thanks to the Electoral College and its winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. I tend to agree with this but the two-party system is also protected thanks to the gerrymandered districts and the single-member district/ winner-take-all system (Simple Plurality system where a candidate can be disliked by a majority of voters but need only 1 more vote to win a seat). Of course, there's no such thing as the perfect candidate and we need to unite to work together for our electoral future. It would be nice to see a huge % of the people to turnout and vote, right? Well, if we want to reach that goal, we need to put our elected officials in the hot seat and unite to give ourselves a voting system that we deserve. I've already sent many newspapers and non-profit political organizations like Fair Vote (www.fairvote.org if you're interested). If we want to see better politicians and more parties like the Greens, Libertarians or Constitutionalists, to name a few, have their voices heard by the country, we need to give something up in order to get something. So, if we vote for 3rd parties now until say 6 years, it might be a protest vote. But in the future it could mean an effective vote, electing a party to Congress or something. Your question was very good by the way. Vote for who you really like in 08, don't listen to these fools that say "oh, you're wasting your vote!". Thanks!!

Answer 4

The only countries that have no Parties or only one major one are all dictatorships. Given a choice, I would like to see 3 or more Parties. That won't even work unless they are active at all levels of government.

Answer 5

We defiantly need at least a third and probably a fourth party. Neither the republicans or the Dems serve the public interest. I voted libertarian.

Answer 6

Partisanship. as a substitute of vote casting for someone simply by D or R next to their call, it would make you vote for the guy who you think of might do the terrific job for u . s . of america. it would additionally make our representatives do an identical somewhat than go alongside with social gathering lines. many situations I even have seen one facet say we prefer something, then whilst the different social gathering concurs, the 1st social gathering is swiftly against it. it would rigidity us to be greater effective advised voters. you will possibly could desire to dig deeper than purely what social gathering they belong to and need they stick to those lines without being to extreme.

Answer 7

GET RID OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES AND POLITICIANS. They are all crooks. All they do is scam the public and make stupid laws that they dont even obey.

Answer 8

What would all of the old people do then? They would have to ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION TO WHO WAS RUNNING!!!!

This country needs a huge change, and you're right on in getting away with labels.

Answer 9

i think the parties should work together more with the issues and stop arguing about everything

Answer 10

I think we should do away with the Democratic Party.