Let's Ban Political Parties From the Political Process

[longknife]

There are times this blog is so outrageous it's hilarious. But, this one seems to hit the nail on the head


- See more at: Let s Ban Political Parties From the Political Process

 

[Pogo]

Right on brother, I'm in.

>> Historically, political parties in socialized countries have always worked against the people of the countries - the political parties becoming little more than organized criminal conspiracies whose purpose is always at odds with the good fair distribution of the commons.<<

Political parties have always done that. Soon as they get to the phase of existence for the purpose of self-perpetuation. Usually that's around election win number two. It's the pitfall of organizing power via institution rather than via public spirit. Once it's no longer a populist Movement, it becomes another kind of movement, with the populace as its toilet.

I love the attitude of the site. Very creative.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Eliminating parties would help ensure (in theory at least) that politicians vote for what's best instead of whatever their party says to vote for (party lines.)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Let s Ban Political Parties From the Political Process"

After we amend the Constitution repealing the First Amendment.

 

[Pogo]

Eliminating parties would help ensure (in theory at least) that politicians vote for what's best instead of whatever their party says to vote for (party lines.)

Hmm --- not really. For that to happen we have to eliminate lobbyists.

I've always said being elected to office should be more like a prison term. Not in terms of punishment but isolation. Put 'em in a dorm, give 'em free meals and a bed, no salary, and no contact with anyone but constituents. In other words treat it as real "community service". See how many of 'em make a career out of that -- and those who do, deserve to stay there.

They should be less like media stars, more like priests.
Well, I mean without the pedophilia part... there would be no celibacy requirement -- that would be stoopid.

 

[Pogo]

"Let s Ban Political Parties From the Political Process"

After we amend the Constitution repealing the First Amendment.

First Amendment need not apply. A party is not a person. Just as a corporation isn't. In fact it's a distinction without a difference.

This concept is all about decentralization.

 

[occupied]

Politics is impossible without parties. The problem is that we just have two very similar parties with an exclusive monopoly on power.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

One political reform I'd love to see more than any other is holding candidates responsible for campaign promises. If they don't fulfill them within a reasonable amount of time once elected they're recalled automatically. If you know you're gonna have to fulfill promises you make, you'll make less and be voted in (or not) based on actual merit, not pie-in-the-sky promises.

 

[Pogo]

Politics is impossible without parties. The problem is that we just have two very similar parties with an exclusive monopoly on power.

Why is it "impossible without parties"? (The concept "parties" here meaning permanent parties)

 

[candycorn]

Lets try this...

You should ban the government from running primary elections, first and foremost. Parties are private; they should pay 100% of the costs of holding their primaries. Maybe then we would actually see 3rd parties emerge over time.

Then, when it is time for the constitutionally prescribed General Election, you take candidates who show broad support via signed petitions and they become your roster of candidates to select from (or you can write in your own).

That the State has any hand in selecting your Party's candidate should be an affront to Americans and those who love our republican system.

 

[natstew]

Upon declaring their candidacy they should be required to swear an oath and be liable for perjury. same as witnesses in a Courtroom.

 

[natstew]

Lets try this...

You should ban the government from running primary elections, first and foremost. Parties are private; they should pay 100% of the costs of holding their primaries. Maybe then we would actually see 3rd parties emerge over time.

Then, when it is time for the constitutionally prescribed General Election, you take candidates who show broad support via signed petitions and they become your roster of candidates to select from (or you can write in your own).

That the State has any hand in selecting your Party's candidate should be an affront to Americans and those who love our republican system.

We have different ideologies, but I support you on this.

 

[ChrisL]

What I would like to see is an evening out of the playing field so that third party and lesser known candidates don't get drowned out. I like the idea of having a limit on campaign funding. Why not just allow a certain amount of money to be spent on campaigning?

 

[occupied]

Politics is impossible without parties. The problem is that we just have two very similar parties with an exclusive monopoly on power.

Why is it "impossible without parties"? (The concept "parties" here meaning permanent parties)

Politics needs a stable, continuing organization to achieve long-term goals that will take longer than a single term in office otherwise we would have to depend on cults of personality built around charismatic individuals to provide a center for popular agendas.

 

[Pogo]

Politics is impossible without parties. The problem is that we just have two very similar parties with an exclusive monopoly on power.

Why is it "impossible without parties"? (The concept "parties" here meaning permanent parties)

Politics needs a stable, continuing organization to achieve long-term goals that will take longer than a single term in office otherwise we would have to depend on cults of personality built around charismatic individuals to provide a center for popular agendas.

Nah, I don't think so. If a long term goal is a worthy one, the impetus will (and should) come from We the People, pardon the nominative case. Once you start hiring the same guy to do a job that didn't get done you've wandered away from goal attaining and wandered toward "job security". If we have a goal and Pol A doesn't get it done, put Pol B in there. Same goal. Should be no different from hiring somebody to get a particular job done.

The job itself is the constant. That's not the goal of an Entrenched Political Party -- the goal of the latter is self perpetuation. Which as far as We the People are concerned, is profoundly irrelevant.

 

[Pogo]

Other than the fact that it would leave only one -- If either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party ceased to exist tomorrow, would any of us count it as a "great loss"?

I sure wouldn't.

 

[occupied]

Politics is impossible without parties. The problem is that we just have two very similar parties with an exclusive monopoly on power.

Why is it "impossible without parties"? (The concept "parties" here meaning permanent parties)

Politics needs a stable, continuing organization to achieve long-term goals that will take longer than a single term in office otherwise we would have to depend on cults of personality built around charismatic individuals to provide a center for popular agendas.

Nah, I don't think so. If a long term goal is a worthy one, the impetus will (and should) come from We the People, pardon the nominative case. Once you start hiring the same guy to do a job that didn't get done you've wandered away from goal attaining and wandered toward "job security". If we have a goal and Pol A doesn't get it done, put Pol B in there. Same goal. Should be no different from hiring somebody to get a particular job done.

The job itself is the constant. That's not the goal of an Entrenched Political Party -- the goal of the latter is self perpetuation. Which as far as We the People are concerned, is profoundly irrelevant.

I am speaking strictly of how humans conduct politics not defending our two party system. If Americans were politically sophisticated there would be 4 or 5 major parties but we tend to apply either/or reasoning to any political question so there are only two. Entrenched parties are only a consequence of the bigger problem of most Americans not really giving a **** about politics.

 

[longknife]

I'm so glad to see a civil debate on this,