Perhaps we should get rid of the political party concept, it seems to hurt more than it helps?

Question

Folks seem to align themselves with polical parties, kind of like sports teams. If you are a yankees fan, you are a yankees fan (with few exceptions), no matter who is on the team, no matter who coaches, usually no matter what. Kind of like many Republicans are behind Bush even though he (and those that support him) spend money like it does not matter and has started a war resulting in 100,000's of deaths (this is not pro-life), on admitedly false information. Democrats are currently aligning themselves behind a Clinton because she has the best chance of winning for their team.

Let's outlaw parties and people grouping together in politics before they are elected. This way folks will be forced to look at the actual issues rather than, who has the best chance of winning. I fear 100 years from now folks are still going to be thinking Dem/Rep as the two options when they are basically the same. We need new viewpoints and we need to focus on more than War, Sex Scandals and Health Care.

Even if you keep the parties, why have primaries? Why not have all of the candidates run in one general election. Don't tell me it is too confusing for some folks, that is their problem.

Answer 1

This would not work. You can't tell people to not form groups that champion certain issues. You just can't.

Political Parties may over-represent some issues,(and ignore others) but at least for now you need to examine the issues and vote with the party that most agrees with you. If you try and pick a candidate that matches your opinions point for point, then no one useful would get elected. Political parties work because they are a cohesive group that can work together for a single cause, something an individual politician cannot hope to accomplish. What people need to remember is to check what their party is currently standing for, as that can change over time, and see if the politicians of that party are supporting the same opinions you originally supported them for.

As for Democrats aligning with Clinton, thats because she has the greatest name recognition. People have heard her name before, so they say they'd vote for her in polls. Rudy Guilianni has the same thing going for him on the conservative side of the spectrum. Truthfully, Hillary is NOT the candidate best able to defeat a Republican candidate.

In polls pitting Republican versus Democratic candidates against each-other, one on one, Edwards beats both Clinton and Obama, having a higher victory margin over any of the Republican candidates.

Answer 2

The cure is worse than the disease. It also assumes that elections and government are separate, which is inaccurate.

Political parties have developed in every major democracy for a simple reason. A national organization is essential to accomplishing political goals. Even if you begin with no political parties at election 1, you will have them by election 3 for a very simple reason. The people elected at the first election will make allies and opponents once they get in office. The allies will try to help each other get re-elected and try to prevent their opponents from getting re-elected. While you might be able to prevent an official label on these alliances, you can't prevent them.

Since you are going to have these "unofficial alliances," the question becomes why not make these organizations official.

Most people aren't like the people who answer these questions, they don't spend a lot of time studying the candidates (and may not vote except in the general election). They are used to using labels and brand names in everything as a means of determining what is good. A political party should stand for a general philosophy (even if some candidates end up being exceptions to the rule). The label on the candidates tell the voters that one candidate supports the general philosophy of the Democratic Party, another supports the general philosophy of the Republican Party, a third supports the general philosophy of the Libertarian Party, etc. The labels allow most voters to make a semi-intelligent decision at the ballot box given the other demands on their time (which they see as just as important as politics). Removing the labels would force voters to find another easy method of determing who was the best candidate (and there is no guarantee that the alternative method would be better).

In addition, political parties makes it easier for activists to have influence outside their own district. In my own district, I know the candidates and their stands. If I want policy X, it is easy to support the candidate who also wants policy X. However, it takes more than my two Senators, my Representative, and the President to enact policy X. It takes 218 Representatives, 60 Senators, and the President to enact policy X. Even for someone like those of us who live and breathe politics, figuring out approximately 470 races is a time consuming task. Having a national organization (or organizations -- some of which are technically not "official" political parties but rather factions within a party) allows us to contribute money to these organizations trusting them to find the races and candidates in which supporters of policy X can win.

Looking at who has the best chance of winning is part of politics (even if you got rid of political parties). I may want policy X, but, in a field of say ten candidates, I need to consider which candidates are the most likely to win (barring a change in the voting system). In a first past the post system, if a candidate who is fully for policy X is in fourth place getting around 10% support and three other candidates are polling around 25% each, I need to vote for the one of those three candidates who is most likely to give me half of policy X. If not, the candidate of the three who is least likely to give me half a loaf might win with my vote being wasted on the "purer" candidate who can't win. (Now in a preferential system, I could vote the pure candidate as my first choice knowing that my vote would then be transfered to my second choice if the pure candidate did not outperform the polls).

Answer 3

Uh huh. People by and large cannot be bothered voting or taking an interest in who is running their country and how they are doing so and you are proposing that we make it more difficult for people to gather information and decide who deserves their vote?

I highly doubt that the problem is political parties in themselves but a complex mix of anti-communist fear mongering, lack of both general information and specific information about electoral politics, increasingly centrist politics and parties, lack of good unbiased media coverage (rather than completely uninformative political ads) and general disenfranchisement with the whole political process.

At least political parties give the voter a vague representation of what individual candidates believe in. I cannot imagine how voters would be able to make a decision based on the scant amount of information that we receive about the actual candidates without the rudimentary classification that the party system provides.

Answer 4

I can't agree more.

Reguarding political parties George Washington once wrote in his farewell address: "One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations"

George Washington predicted the behavior of modern political parties. Warned us against it. Yet here we are, two parties trying to misrepresent the opinions and aims of the oposite party.

The biggest drawback (in my opinion) to political parties, is that we end up voting for a party and not for a candidate. We are blinded by Red or Blue. The general election ends up being a choice between two people, instead of many.

The best thing desolving the parties would bring up (in my opinion) is the loss of "primary elections" The whole spectrum of candidates should be voted on in the general election. Not just two chosen people.

As a democrate, if my chosen candidate doesn't win the nomination, what makes you think I want to vote for the person who does. Instead, I end up voting party lines. Even if the Democrate running isn't the person I wanted there in the first place.

All of you Ron Paul fans: What happens if he isn't nominated? You'll end up voting for the Republican candidate even if he isn't who you wanted to be President.

Party politics should be outlawed.
People should vote for the person who most reflects their political views.

Answer 5

A star for you. I couldn't agree more. There are so many people that approach politics with a high school football mentality, complete with red and blue uniforms, and the more devisive a candidate is, (Hillary), the better. How far could we get if half the country didn't despise the next President?

Answer 6

they're hurting the rustic in that the two area refuses to compromise. those infantile women and men anyone is so stressful-headed and narrow-minded that they gained't even evaluate that there basically could be a minimum of one or 2 aspects of the others ideology rather worth a minimum of pondering. There are helpful segments of liberal ideology, basically as there are of conservative ideology. yet as a replace of mixing the two right into a effective and advantageous ethos, the two area wastes a important quantity of their time and power criticizing. That weakens our usa and promotes unfavourable divisiveness.