NationStates

Imota wrote:If all of America's political parties were to disappear tomorrow, we'd have a billion new ones on Tuesday, and by the end of the week they'd coalesce into two big ones.

I would agree; the presence of only two major political parties that agree on half of the things and engage in positively vitriolic mudslinging over the other half is really a symptom of an underlying series of issues. Namely, if we want to see a range of political parties and a distribution of influence among such parties that more accurately reflects the diversity of views among the American people, we would need to change two things:

1) We need to repudiate (or the Supreme Court needs to overturn) Citizens United; letting unlimited cash flow into elections at every level of government breeds a degree of polarization and corruption that is unhealthy for this nation.

2) We need to shake up the way we elect federal officials. The president would need to be elected directly by the people, and both the President and members of the House of Representatives would need to be elected via IRV (instant runoff voting), while the number of Senators per state would double or triple (preferably triple) and Senators would need to be elected via STV (the single transferable vote).

*coughpoliticalfreedomcough*

Removing political parties would be a good idea. However, for it to be really beneficial, it would have to be replaced with a consultative form of government, as seen in some African tribes as well as notably the early Caliphate.

Somali Caliphate wrote:Removing political parties would be a good idea. However, for it to be really beneficial, it would have to be replaced with a consultative form of government, as seen in some African tribes as well as notably the early Caliphate.

You might want to explain, but do you really think that would work in a nation of 300,000,000 people?

What about a triumvirate, where there are three leaders (consuls) and there is one consul representing a political party.

Ex. A Republican Consul, An Democrat Consul, and a Communist or Libertarian Consul.

Farnhamia wrote:

Risottia wrote:
My fingertips, you mean? I wouldn't dream of actually reading that loud.

I could bite my thumb at thee, you thou Cisalpine Gaul, you thou.

For consistency!
Anyway, biting thumbs at people is an insult only in Verona.

Nordengrund wrote:What about a triumvirate, where there are three leaders (consuls) and there is one consul representing a political party.

Ex. A Republican Consul, An Democrat Consul, and a Communist or Libertarian Consul.

No, I think the system we have now is fine.

I ,for one, believe the political parties should be banned....all the parties do is rag on eachother, they don't actually talk about anything important. They don't actually care what is right or wrong, only winning elections.

Alaje wrote:I ,for one, believe the political parties should be banned....all the parties do is rag on eachother, they don't actually talk about anything important. They don't actually care what is right or wrong, only winning elections.

That's just cynical tripe. They do talk about important things. The only problem is compromise in a deadlocked/hung parliament or congress or whatever, which is increasingly common in harsh economic conditions.

The Black Forrest wrote::)

I know. It's broken when it doesn't favor what you want.

No, it's broken period. 48 of the 50 states (Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions) enshrine a majoritarian method for selecting the electors by using a winner-take-all method, limiting the number of viable parties immensely.

Nordengrund wrote:When America was founded, there were no political parties. George Washington thought political parties were dumb. Until Democrats and Republicans appeared, I think that there were not any stupid issues like we have today and there was a lot less bickering back then then there is now. I believe the America from its Independence was the Golden Age of the United States.

I am wondering. Since there were initially no politcal parties other than Whig/Federalist, and everyone was pro- life, shouldn't we ban political parties so there is not so much quarrelling? Instead of voting for someone who is a Democrat or a Republican, we should vote for people for what they believe in, not for their party.

Would it be better if America was a No- Party State?

The two partys were the federalist and antyfedralist. Soon the antyfedralist split and absorbed the federalist mostly into one hafe the democratic-republicans and the wigs. Later the democratic-republicans split on weather property rights and state sovereignty trumped civil rights. At that point the Republicans were the anty-property party

Socialdemokraterne wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote::)

I know. It's broken when it doesn't favor what you want.

No, it's broken period. 48 of the 50 states (Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions) enshrine a majoritarian method for selecting the electors by using a winner-take-all method, limiting the number of viable parties immensely.

Ok so how do we fix it.

The Black Forrest wrote:Ok so how do we fix it.

It's pretty straightforward. We don't fix it, it's a bad idea. Instead we remove it and replace it with an electoral method based on the popular vote using a preferential-list system.

Socialdemokraterne wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:Ok so how do we fix it.

It's pretty straightforward. We don't fix it, it's a bad idea. Instead we remove it and replace it with an electoral method based on the popular vote using a preferential-list system.

An excellent way to relegate the small states to the dustbin.

Socialdemokraterne wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:Ok so how do we fix it.

It's pretty straightforward. We don't fix it, it's a bad idea. Instead we remove it and replace it with an electoral method based on the popular vote using a preferential-list system.

Continue

How do you balance out the attraction of California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois over South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming?

Farnhamia wrote:

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
It's pretty straightforward. We don't fix it, it's a bad idea. Instead we remove it and replace it with an electoral method based on the popular vote using a preferential-list system.

An excellent way to relegate the small states to the dustbin.

Why should states with smaller populations be given a leg-up to begin with? Why artificially increase the power of a Montanan's vote?

The USA either needs two more or two less.


Come to think of it, without political parties who would people know who to vote for? /sarcasm

Socialdemokraterne wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:An excellent way to relegate the small states to the dustbin.

Why should states with smaller populations be given a leg-up to begin with? Why artificially increase the power of a Montanan's vote?

Politically equality? Because living in a megalopolis should not be a requirement for having a say in how the country is run? Did I mention political equality?

I personally think America should embrace a Direct Democracy model of government. It would certainly improve the country.

As for this, eh, America is basically a one party state since both parties stand for almost the same thing. So I really have no problems with the abolishment of the parties. I still think a Direct Democracy model would be better.

Farnhamia wrote:

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
Why should states with smaller populations be given a leg-up to begin with? Why artificially increase the power of a Montanan's vote?

Politically equality? Because living in a megalopolis should not be a requirement for having a say in how the country is run? Did I mention political equality?

Maybe I haven't been clear. The collective popular vote of the entire country would decide the chief executive. Living in a megalopolis wouldn't have a whit of an effect on your vote power. We're not allocating points. We're counting votes directly.

Black Flag Union wrote:I personally think America should embrace a Direct Democracy model of government. It would certainly improve the country.

As for this, eh, America is basically a one party state since both parties stand for almost the same thing. So I really have no problems with the abolishment of the parties. I still think a Direct Democracy model would be better.

Freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution, so abolishing parties is impossible. And direct democracy? Yes, let's have votes on every single thing, that's a great way to run a country as big as the US.

Japao wrote:

Caninope wrote:This makes several presumptions.

This presumes that the two party system doesn't act like a multi-party system already (the two parties are more like coalitions than parties in the European sense). This presumes that the parties won't coalesce back into two major parties. This presumes that such an action will fly, constitutionally. This presumes that Democrats and Republicans will dissolve their own parties. Finally, this presumes that the voters will like their parties being dissolved.

I know that it's unconstitutional, but I simply said it as an alternative to just getting rid of all political parties like the OP said. Yes, there would be an uproar, from voters and corporations alike. And truthfully, I can't say if they wouldn't just meld back into the two dominant parties again. I also can't and won't speak for everyone, but it is my personal belief that by getting rid of those two parties but make the voting game much more level. That way third parties can get equal representation and a fairer chance to be heard.

I'm not trying to offer up the solution, simply a solution.

Honestly, I don't want third parties to have any of a chance.

We have crazy third parties. Does anyone want the Constitution Party, Libertarians, Green Party, CPUSA, or SPUSA in charge?

A first past the post political system will always necessitate a 2 group system. Whether that will be 2 officially established political parties or not matters little.

Ifreann wrote:And if you think that's why the Republicans and Democrats dominate US politics you're mistaken.

DEAR GOD! THAT'S IT!

It must be the pinstripes. Politicians have suits with pinstripes. Obama obviously had pinstripes, and McCain didn't. I now know how to run for the Senate when I'm eligible.

United States of Cascadia wrote:A first past the post political system will always necessitate a 2 group system. Whether that will be 2 officially established political parties or not matters little.

True. Doing away with that system requires a huge change in American politics and culture. I'm not sure it could be done.