The only president to ever do that was George Washington for his first term. His second term, though not declared as a Federalist, George Washington was supported by the Federalists. Every other president was affiliated with a party so tradition, if nothing else, dictates we continue the way we have been doing things. We have had problem presidencies in the past with people wanting 3rd parties and candidates running independantly etc. and it rarely worked. The last viable 3rd party was the Republican Party whose roots were in the Whig Party which, of course, no longer exists. Teddy Roosevelt tried to form the Progressive Party early in the 20th Century to counter Wm. Taft's attempt at reelection and TR came in second to Woodrow Wilson with Taft a distant 3rd. After that the Progressive Party of TR was no more.
It would be nice to talk issues but so many people are scared to death to talk the real issues because they are afraid that their stand won't be popular enough to get them elected. They put their stand on their web sites, these days, and hope only their most ardent admirers will see them otherwise they don't want them mentioned. Look at the ridiculous attempts at debate. Those things on TV are a sham. It is more of a gotcha session than true debate on issues. So all we can go by is what sound bites and photo ops, a few gotcha TV shows to go on if we are really paying some attention. Those who pay very close attention know more and are the only ones that seem to keep elections from being a total joke. Unfortunately that number dwindles as the hype and spin increase.
2007-08-15 02:49:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think you are wrong in your complaints. Candidates can be a member of any party they choose. Or, they can run as independents. For the most part, people vote for the candidate, not for the party.
When there are nine Democrats running for the same office, voters will be picking by candidate, not by party. Political parties do not run the government. Elected officials do.
The campaigns are fair as they can be.
If a candidate has supporters, he gets contributions, and he stays in the race.
Usually, Democrats are more liberal, so they attract liberal candidates and liberal supporters.
Usually Republicans are more conservative, so they attract conservative voters.
With 19 or 20 people running for President right now, how would you possibly find the time to figure out what they all stand for, before voting for only one? Most people would not take the time.
The primaries are a sorting process. It works for me.
2007-08-15 02:17:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it would be hard to achieve "fair" elections. But I think putting a cap on spending would be a good start. I also think that there may be potential behind the idea of having all candidates who wish to run be funded through a special fund put together solely for that purpose.
Allow candidates to advertise for free on major news networks and radio stations, but each receiving a set, limited amount of time and number of spots. This would also do away with the obscene spending that has been going on to pay for these campaigns.
It would also help deal with special interest groups using politicians as puppets.
I know the issues go far deeper, but I think some of these ideas could be a step in the right direction.
2007-08-15 02:14:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by bmattj121 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
You would still have candidates slinging half truths and out right lies during a campaign to smear their opponents.
But the destruction of the major parties would end the practice of exclusion of anyone not in the major parties.
2007-08-15 02:10:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by sprcpt 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
It'd be fairer if every time they lied and their eyes flickered like candles blowing in the wind - that they got a sweet little jolt of electricity running through their veins.
2007-08-15 02:08:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The one advantage we have with them belonging to a party is that we can sift through to their real agenda. Democrats are pushing for socialism, bigger government, higher taxes, smaller military, pro-abortion, activist judges and appeasement. I don't care what they say, as long as they belong to that party, they are condoning those beliefs.
2007-08-15 02:11:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There should also be a cap on how much money they can spend on their campaign. It seems to me that the one with the most money...gets the most advertising.
2007-08-15 02:07:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Granny Gruntz 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
that was washington's dream
but it was not practical
even if parties were outlawed
a) they would be secret
or
b) they would be unofficial
2007-08-15 03:06:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋