Outlaw Political Parties?

[Vastator]

Could we? Should we? How could it change things for the better? How could it change things for the worse?
If I recall correctly a number of Founding Fathers were opposed to parties and party affiliations.

What would a non- partisan government look like in these current times?

 

[Vastator]

Bumpski...

 

[Pogo]

Do it! A pox on both their houses! Off wi' their heads! etc etc.

Political parties exist to consolidate and coordinate power, and that's all they exist for. How does that benefit the public?
When you have a Duopoly, its own domination works to perpetuate itself so that any third alternative is crushed by the "two" working together.

At the least we could maybe award them a finite charter, say -- ten years? -- which would expire and be nonrenewable.

"As for a third party, we tried that in 1972, the People's Party. Unfortunately we hadn't remembered that in order to have a third party, you must first have two other parties". -- Gore Vidal​

 

[Pogo]

"What would a non-partisan government look like"?

It would run the risk of actually dealing with actual issues rather than bullshit partisan dog-and-pony shows like Benghazi and Monicagate.

 

[Siete]

revolution requires evolving ... maybe some day in generations to come.

right now the batshit crazy RW's are speeding things up.

 

[teddyearp]

The way our system is working now, the way the President and especially the Vice-Pres is elected is not constitutional.

 

[Anathema]

That would be a magnificent start to fixing our political system. It's not a solution by itself but ut would be a great start.

 

[Arizona Willie]

How would things be organized if there were no political parties?

How would someone become a candidate and how would he get support and money?

All elections SHOULD be publically(sp) financed and lobbying should be outlawed.

If we did those two things we could still have the political parties.

The parties themselves are not the problem.

It's the MONEY that is the problem.

A Congressperson has to start raising money for their re-election the day after the win.
Most Congresspeople are bought and sold by lobbiests.

If we outlawed the lobbying it would be a tremendous step to cleaning up government.

Lobbying is the HEART of the problems because it allows corporations and the super wealthy to buy legislators to write legislation specifically for them giving them tax cuts and government subsidies ( corporate welfare ) even when they are highly profitable.

 

[Pogo]

How would things be organized if there were no political parties?

How would someone become a candidate and how would he get support and money?

All elections SHOULD be publically(sp) financed and lobbying should be outlawed.

If we did those two things we could still have the political parties.

The parties themselves are not the problem.

It's the MONEY that is the problem.

A Congressperson has to start raising money for their re-election the day after the win.
Most Congresspeople are bought and sold by lobbiests.

If we outlawed the lobbying it would be a tremendous step to cleaning up government.

Lobbying is the HEART of the problems because it allows corporations and the super wealthy to buy legislators to write legislation specifically for them giving them tax cuts and government subsidies ( corporate welfare ) even when they are highly profitable.

They're both a problem. Money corrupts, absolutely. But PPs (I like calling 'em PPs) serve as a conduit to make that flow of money easy, just like an oil pipeline serves Big Oil to make its flow of raw material easy. Neither benefits the People.

What does a PP do for us? Zero. Its energy goes to perpetuate itself.

"Lobbying should be outlawed", I agree. I'd like to see Congresscritters housed in a dorm, with free room and board, no salary, and no communication with anyone except constituents and each other. Let 'em find out what the noun in "public service" really means. We'd have a lot fewer making a career out of it if it were a duty rather than an opportunity to get rich.

 

[CowboyTed]

Lads been saying it for a while...

Money corrupt, elected officials are working for lobbyists and vested interests.

The problem is not political parties, the problem is that there is only two of them. Because the US has the one man one vote system this drives to a two party system. The problem people have is there views and preferences are far more diverse than just two options.


The actual method I would recommend is Proportional Representation (using Alternative Vote/Single vate transfer)....

If want to know more ask... But It would mean America would get a Tea Party, Democratic Socialist Party, Green Party, American Nationalist Party probably all gaining seats in Congress almost immediately...

Because the views of these party members are much tighter, parties would have a lot more disciplince.

 

[g5000]

Could we? Should we? How could it change things for the better? How could it change things for the worse?
If I recall correctly a number of Founding Fathers were opposed to parties and party affiliations.

What would a non- partisan government look like in these current times?

The Founders did not anticipate parties, particularly how quickly they arose. But parties are inevitable. You will not, and should not, ever be rid of them.

There is no such thing as a non-partisan government because there is no such thing as a non-partisan person.

 

[g5000]

I've lived in countries that have multiple major parties. Anyone who tells you we would be better off with more than two major parties is a fool. Multiple parties means way more confusion, strange bedfellows, and compromising of principles.

 

[Pogo]

I've lived in countries that have multiple major parties. Anyone who tells you we would be better off with more than two major parties is a fool. Multiple parties means way more confusion and compromising of principles.

Please, by all means flesh that out. How does that not virtually guarantee the emergence of a colluding duopoly?

 

[g5000]

1. Come up with a better idea.

2. Sell that idea.

3. Defend that idea.

The modern day GOP can't even get past step one. They are too cowardly.

When you are the party of no ideas, the party of bad ideas wins. That's how we got ObamaCare.

 

[Pogo]

1. Come up with a better idea.

2. Sell that idea.

3. Defend that idea.

The modern day GOP can't even get past step one. They are too cowardly.

When you are the party of no ideas, the party of bad ideas wins. That's how we got ObamaCare.

Yes it is, but that doesn't make the case for Duopoly. In fact it makes the case against it, in that if there's a third (fourth etc) party there's more chance for a better idea in there.

Moreover when you have such a Duopoly playing the part of antagonists outwardly while agreeing inwardly on what the issues will be and how they'll be handled, you have effectively narrowed political discourse (and action) into That Which Serves the Duopoly, and shut out all else.

(see "Sanders, Bernie")

Is this even intended to follow/answer the previous post? I can't tell.

 

[CowboyTed]

I've lived in countries that have multiple major parties. Anyone who tells you we would be better off with more than two major parties is a fool. Multiple parties means way more confusion, strange bedfellows, and compromising of principles.

Sorry could never back you on this statement... Multiple parties give better choice... In America you just need to buy off both sides...

Multiple parties are much better and yes they have coalitions, but they have advantages too...

If less parties were better, then one party rule would be the best...

 

[CowboyTed]

1. Come up with a better idea.

2. Sell that idea.

3. Defend that idea.

The modern day GOP can't even get past step one. They are too cowardly.

When you are the party of no ideas, the party of bad ideas wins. That's how we got ObamaCare.

g5000,

I can't see your consistency... You believe in market place economics. letting the market decide and letting competition thrive.

But when you come to politics you are effectively defending a cartel of two.

Imagine if you had only two makers of every product...

 

[g5000]

1. Come up with a better idea.

2. Sell that idea.

3. Defend that idea.

The modern day GOP can't even get past step one. They are too cowardly.

When you are the party of no ideas, the party of bad ideas wins. That's how we got ObamaCare.

g5000,

I can't see your consistency... You believe in market place economics. letting the market decide and letting competition thrive.

But when you come to politics you are effectively defending a cartel of two.

Imagine if you had only two makers of every product...

I'm not defending a cartel of two. I am defending the marketplace of ideas. The small third parties we have today do not have better ideas. They are propellerheads undeserving of a larger part of the electoral process.

If they had better ideas, they would succeed.

I have frequently pointed out on this forum that a larger and larger portion of the population is opting out of elections. Two thirds of voters stayed home last election, and I have predicted the 2016 election will see the lowest Presidential election turnout since 1924.

Elections are now being determined by how many voters get pissed off enough at their own party they decide to stay home.

This means we are ripe for a new major party. One which will supplant one of the existing parties.

 

[Vastator]

1. Come up with a better idea.

2. Sell that idea.

3. Defend that idea.

The modern day GOP can't even get past step one. They are too cowardly.

When you are the party of no ideas, the party of bad ideas wins. That's how we got ObamaCare.

g5000,

I can't see your consistency... You believe in market place economics. letting the market decide and letting competition thrive.

But when you come to politics you are effectively defending a cartel of two.

Imagine if you had only two makers of every product...

I'm not defending a cartel of two. I am defending the marketplace of ideas. The small third parties we have today do not have better ideas. They are propellerheads undeserving of a larger part of the electoral process.

If they had better ideas, they would succeed.

I have frequently pointed out on this forum that a larger and larger portion of the population is opting out of elections. Two thirds of voters stayed home last election, and I have predicted the 2016 election will see the lowest Presidential election turnout since 1924.

Elections are now being determined by how many voters get pissed off enough at their own party they decide to stay home.

This means we are ripe for a new major party. One which will supplant one of the existing parties.

You caught my interest with that last sentence. Do you have any particular third parties in mind? Good post tell me more.

 

[Pogo]

If they had better ideas, they would succeed.

I gotta take issue with that premise, seriously.

If it were a level playing field that would have a chance. But when you have a Duopoly running the table you don't have that. Take Presidential debates. At one time they were managed by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters; now they're arranged by collusion between the two party (singular intentional). Which means any issues inconvenient to both -- or any issue side A doesn't want discussed that can be traded for an issue side B doesn't want discussed -- won't make it into the discourse. And certainly nor will a third-party voice who might threaten the Duopoly.

Yeah I'd say that's a cartel of two. It's like putting Exxon and Chevron jointly in charge of the EPA. Which in turn is much like what the DC Revolving Door already does.