Should America Do Away With Political Parties?

[The Rich Port]

'Tis.

Huzzah!

Now see 'ere, you flibbertigibbets.

Freedom of Association, sure.

Freedom of Rigging Elections, Skimming Money, and Lying To The Public, not so much.

And if that's legal... Well, then no. Just no.

[Zonolia]

Though I am a Republican, I think we should have a non- party state, or have a multi- party system, but let Libertarians and other parties have representation in the government.

No. Political freedoms. First Amendment. United States Constitution.

So the 1st Amendment says we cannot have a multi-party state? What he means the US has been a 2-party (totalitarian) state for too long, we need to bring in more than just 2 parties...

[Ifreann]

Huzzah!

Now see 'ere, you flibbertigibbets.

Freedom of Association, sure.

Freedom of Rigging Elections, Skimming Money, and Lying To The Public, not so much.

And if that's legal... Well, then no. Just no.

You can't disband the Republican or Democratic parties over allegations of election rigging or misappropriating funds. You can put the responsible individuals within those organisations in jail, if they're tried and convicted, but that's about it.


Oh, and lying to the public probably is completely legal, depending on what, exactly, you're lying about.

[Socialist EU]

No. We should have MORE political parties.

We have tons. We need minor parties with brains and practical platforms, not ones that serve as ego-trips for people who want to run for President.

One that includes abolishing the presidency.

[Farnhamia]

No. Political freedoms. First Amendment. United States Constitution.

So the 1st Amendment says we cannot have a multi-party state? What he means the US has been a 2-party (totalitarian) state for too long, we need to bring in more than just 2 parties...

We have lots of political parties in the US.

[Farnhamia]

We have tons. We need minor parties with brains and practical platforms, not ones that serve as ego-trips for people who want to run for President.

One that includes abolishing the presidency.

Knock yourself out. Requires a Constitutional Amendment, of course, but hey, go for it.

[Liriena]

No, the United States should NOT do away with political parties. They should, however, bring more parties to the mainstream (socialists, libertarians, etc.) for the sake of ideological diversity. Otherwise, the "libs vs. cons" paradigm will keep leaving the country politically stagnant, going back and forth between far-right and center-right.

[Ifreann]

So the 1st Amendment says we cannot have a multi-party state? What he means the US has been a 2-party (totalitarian) state for too long, we need to bring in more than just 2 parties...

We have lots of political parties in the US.

Some are even completely serious, as opposed to Vermin Supreme or England's Monster Raving Loony Party.

[Samuraikoku]

Now see 'ere, you flibbertigibbets.

Freedom of Association, sure.

Freedom of Rigging Elections, Skimming Money, and Lying To The Public, not so much.

And if that's legal... Well, then no. Just no.

Does the First Amendment say anything about any of that being legal?

...

Thought so.

[The Rich Port]

Now see 'ere, you flibbertigibbets.

Freedom of Association, sure.

Freedom of Rigging Elections, Skimming Money, and Lying To The Public, not so much.

And if that's legal... Well, then no. Just no.

You can't disband the Republican or Democratic parties over allegations of election rigging or misappropriating funds. You can put the responsible individuals within those organisations in jail, if they're tried and convicted, but that's about it.


Oh, and lying to the public probably is completely legal, depending on what, exactly, you're lying about.

I'm not sure the RICO laws have a "political party" exemption.

[Socialist EU]

One that includes abolishing the presidency.

Knock yourself out. Requires a Constitutional Amendment, of course, but hey, go for it.

I'm not American of course, but I see no reason why the SPUSA cannot put it in their platform, (Front Gauche proposed this for the French elections)

[Ifreann]

You can't disband the Republican or Democratic parties over allegations of election rigging or misappropriating funds. You can put the responsible individuals within those organisations in jail, if they're tried and convicted, but that's about it.


Oh, and lying to the public probably is completely legal, depending on what, exactly, you're lying about.

I'm not sure the RICO laws have a "political party" exemption.

No, but they do require that one engages in racketeering. Skimming money might count, depending on how exactly it's done. Rigging elections, probably not. Nor lying to the public.

[Farnhamia]

Knock yourself out. Requires a Constitutional Amendment, of course, but hey, go for it.

I'm not American of course, but I see no reason why the SPUSA cannot put it in their platform, (Front Gauche proposed this for the French elections)

No reason they can't.

[Xeng He]

First of all, wow.

I love how you automatically assume that I'm a druggie beeause I'm worried about an issue that seriously screws people's lives up because of one minor decision. Totally the only reason I could care, right?

Pretty damn sure drugs aren't as important as solving 1. The economy,

They're more important, actually.

The absolute biggest problem the economy today could directly cause...is a loss of ability to work.

Incidentally, going to jail on drug charges causes the exact same problem, and costs non-users more, in both money and focus on other crimes.

2. the crises in the middle east,

I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

and 3. our trade with the rest of the world.

Has Congress seriously discussed this with intent to bring about major change?

, but not talking about what you want them to talk about =/= not talking about anything important. Get out of your self-centered little universe, and see that some things are more important than drugs. Thanks.

Okay, fine. I'll rephrase: Congress only talks about certain important things. Other important things, though like the war on Drugs, like farther-reaching amnesty, like factory farming, which you cannot say my interest in is self centered because I'm neither a small farmer nor a pig...we get nothing.

[Free South Califas]

I think about this a lot. On the one hand, it would be nice to free the political discourse from the limiting effect of the party war chests, which subjugate individual convictions in favor of a power base that is unaccountable to the people, and "its" opinions. However, we have seen the danger of half-measures in this area: California and some of its cities have a number of "non-partisan" races that are still defined by the national parties, enslaving our politics to theirs. Presumably, a step in either direction would be preferable: acknowledging and regulating the parties' power, or clamping down on contributions from partisan sources. I could do with a further step down the latter path, abolishing campaign donations entirely and funding all campaigns equally, perhaps with the Robin Hood Tax or something similar.

[Pope Joan]

Can you eliminate high school cliques?

No.

Think how much more power is invested in these parties, in comparison to the Mean Girls.

Lotsa luck.

[New Chalcedon]

Now see 'ere, you flibbertigibbets.

Freedom of Association, sure.

Freedom of Rigging Elections, Skimming Money, and Lying To The Public, not so much.

And if that's legal... Well, then no. Just no.

You can't disband the Republican or Democratic parties over allegations of election rigging or misappropriating funds. You can put the responsible individuals within those organisations in jail, if they're tried and convicted, but that's about it.


Oh, and lying to the public probably is completely legal, depending on what, exactly, you're lying about.

It's entirely legal, per NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA INC WTVT TV v. AKRE (2003). And if a "news" corporation can lie to the public, then so can politicians.

[Soheran]

No. We should make political parties stronger. Voters who "vote for the candidate, not for the party," and candidates who base their campaigns on appeal to this sort of voter, generally undermine democracy; abolishing political parties would make that the only possible voting and electoral methodology.

[Farnhamia]

First of all, wow.

I love how you automatically assume that I'm a druggie beeause I'm worried about an issue that seriously screws people's lives up because of one minor decision. Totally the only reason I could care, right?

Pretty damn sure drugs aren't as important as solving 1. The economy,

They're more important, actually.

The absolute biggest problem the economy today could directly cause...is a loss of ability to work.

Incidentally, going to jail on drug charges causes the exact same problem, and costs non-users more, in both money and focus on other crimes.

2. the crises in the middle east,

I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

and 3. our trade with the rest of the world.

Has Congress seriously discussed this with intent to bring about major change?

, but not talking about what you want them to talk about =/= not talking about anything important. Get out of your self-centered little universe, and see that some things are more important than drugs. Thanks.

Okay, fine. I'll rephrase: Congress only talks about certain important things. Other important things, though like the war on Drugs, like farther-reaching amnesty, like factory farming, which you cannot say my interest in is self centered because I'm neither a small farmer nor a pig...we get nothing.

It is a citizen's responsibility to informs their elected representatives which issues are important to them. These people in Congress are not telepathic: you need to tell them which issues you care about and what you think should be done. If you do not do so, you have no cause for complaint when they do not address those issues.

[Socialist EU]

I'm not American of course, but I see no reason why the SPUSA cannot put it in their platform, (Front Gauche proposed this for the French elections)

No reason they can't.

Exactly, afterall, their programme calls for the abolishing of the NSA for example.*

*Given all the 'National security' excuses to curb "transparency", (yeah, what happened to that Obama?) by the current administration, I can see why they'd put this in their platform. And of course Bradley Manning will not get off as lightly as the Character played by Matt Damon in Green Zone They're obviously not the same, but I'm making a political point about so-called National security issues that should have no place in an apparent 'liberal democracy.' By the current administrations' strict use of evoking 'National Security' the Matt Damon character should have been charged under the espionage act.

[Xeng He]

No. We should make political parties stronger. Voters who "vote for the candidate, not for the party," and candidates who base their campaigns on appeal to this sort of voter, generally undermine democracy; abolishing political parties would make that the only story.

Voting for the party is every bit as bad as voting for a candidate.

Look at how the Republican party's been trending, and its tendency to loudly condemn anyone in the party for not taking certain stances, for proof of this.

[Saluterre]

Knock yourself out. Requires a Constitutional Amendment, of course, but hey, go for it.

I'm not American of course, but I see no reason why the SPUSA cannot put it in their platform, (Front Gauche proposed this for the French elections)

French system =/= American system. And this is coming from a Melenchon supporter. And the SPUSA has bigger things to worry about, like somehow wrestling the country from the grip of a corrupt plutocracy despite having less than 5,000 members. Again, this is coming from one of those 5,000 members.

[Socialist EU]

I'm not American of course, but I see no reason why the SPUSA cannot put it in their platform, (Front Gauche proposed this for the French elections)

French system =/= American system. And this is coming from a Melenchon supporter. And the SPUSA has bigger things to worry about, like somehow wrestling the country from the grip of a corrupt plutocracy despite having less than 5,000 members. Again, this is coming from one of those 5,000 members.

I wish you all the best of luck in the elections, I'd be interested to see what percentage of the vote your party gets and whether they increase their vote count.*

*Of course, using 'official' election results doesn't give you a very good idea of how they went, they're often referred to as 'other'.

[Xeng He]

It is a citizen's responsibility to informs their elected representatives which issues are important to them. These people in Congress are not telepathic: you need to tell them which issues you care about and what you think should be done. If you do not do so, you have no cause for complaint when they do not address those issues.

A fair amount of problems lay with this however.


1. People have talked a great deal about all of these issues. There is, after all, at least one high-profile individual (whom we can both name) who has talked about the War on Drugs. There are others that talk frequently about factory farming. But what has been done?
2. What if I do so, and I get momentum among some people, but the two dominant groups decide to listen to another person doing the same thing with a different issue?

[Saluterre]

French system =/= American system. And this is coming from a Melenchon supporter. And the SPUSA has bigger things to worry about, like somehow wrestling the country from the grip of a corrupt plutocracy despite having less than 5,000 members. Again, this is coming from one of those 5,000 members.

I wish you all the best of luck in the elections, I'd be interested to see what percentage of the vote your party gets and whether they increase their vote count.*

*Of course, using 'official' election results doesn't give you a very good idea of how they went, they're often referred to as 'other'.

Fair point. We'll see soon enough. I know we won't have a "President Stewart Alexander," but t'll be interesting to see if a third party gets more than one percent, preferably not the Constitution or Libertarian parties.