Should political parties be abolished?

[Mad_Cabbie]

Think about it - you will get to see what candidates actually stand for. They will no longer have to reinvent their positions in order to fund their campaigns.

It's win - win.

We will vote for a person and not a party. It's only bad if you are a partisan hack who parks his/her brain at the door and "goes along" with whatever garbage gets served up.

Cap on political monies spent on campaigns with no official endorsements from any political entity.

Big business will not be able to make contributions. All lobbyist can hit the door.

President will no longer get to appoint ANYONE.

Are YOU for this? If not, please let us know why.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Damn it! Meant to add a poll.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I like it except the Presidential appointment thing. How would that work? The President has to have a cabinet. Who selects those folks?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I like it except the Presidential appointment thing. How would that work? The President has to have a cabinet. Who selects those folks?

Why should the prez surround himself with yes-men? Let congress decide.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I like it except the Presidential appointment thing. How would that work? The President has to have a cabinet. Who selects those folks?

Why should the prez surround himself with yes-men? Let congress decide.

Okay....let's say the opposition party is in power and staffs the President's cabinet with idiots or folks who want to sabotage his agenda? Can the President veto a Congressional selection. Basically force Congress into a do-over, or make them override with a 2/3 vote.

I think the Prez should have some kind of input.

 

[BDBoop]

I like it except the Presidential appointment thing. How would that work? The President has to have a cabinet. Who selects those folks?

Why should the prez surround himself with yes-men? Let congress decide.

So they can be congressional yes-men?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I like it except the Presidential appointment thing. How would that work? The President has to have a cabinet. Who selects those folks?

Why should the prez surround himself with yes-men? Let congress decide.

Okay....let's say the opposition party is in power and staffs the President's cabinet with idiots or folks who want to sabotage his agenda? Can the President veto a Congressional selection. Basically force Congress into a do-over, or make them override with a 2/3 vote.

I think the Prez should have some kind of input.

But there will no longer be any kind of party left to do that. The vote would be for the best candidate. Let congress put forth the choices THEN let the president choose the "winner."

 

[TemplarKormac]

No. While I despise the current two party system, you would deny everyone equal representation when you abolish the parties. You can't have one or no parties, since in one case you only have one part of the country being represented, in the other, nobody would be represented. This solution is utterly radical in it's approach.

Instead of abolishing political parties and one branch of our government, strip the government down to it's bare essentials while keeping our branches of government intact and preserving political discourse.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I like it except the Presidential appointment thing. How would that work? The President has to have a cabinet. Who selects those folks?

Why should the prez surround himself with yes-men? Let congress decide.

So they can be congressional yes-men?

Better to have the choices come from a larger group of congressmen, rather than the president who would surely pick nominees that he could "push around."

Furthermore, after congress picks the 'appointees" It's the president that has to work with them. No more conflict of interest.

In politics, fighting over money, policy and positions are always a win for "we the people."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why should the prez surround himself with yes-men? Let congress decide.

Okay....let's say the opposition party is in power and staffs the President's cabinet with idiots or folks who want to sabotage his agenda? Can the President veto a Congressional selection. Basically force Congress into a do-over, or make them override with a 2/3 vote.

I think the Prez should have some kind of input.

But there will no longer be any kind of party left to do that. The vote would be for the best candidate. Let congress put forth the choices THEN let the president choose the "winner."

So, a dictatorship? I beg to differ. It's almost a given that the President would choose "winners" by who more closely represents his views. It would place an undue burden on the Congress, instead of passing law, they would be bogged down voting on 535 members of the legislative branch.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

No. While I despise the current two party system, you would deny everyone equal representation when you abolish the parties. You can't have one or no parties, since in one case you only have one part of the country being represented, in the other, nobody would be represented. This solution is utterly radical in it's approach.

Instead of abolishing political parties and one branch of our government, strip the government down to it's bare essentials while keeping our branches of government intact and preserving political discourse.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, but as a person living in the country for nearly 50 years, I have seen the damage that "parties" can do. People are taught from an early age to be "joiners" and not "thinkers."

Politics cost voters the best options. We can still have representatives, but they will be judged as individuals - not on whether or not they cave unto political interests.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Okay....let's say the opposition party is in power and staffs the President's cabinet with idiots or folks who want to sabotage his agenda? Can the President veto a Congressional selection. Basically force Congress into a do-over, or make them override with a 2/3 vote.

I think the Prez should have some kind of input.

But there will no longer be any kind of party left to do that. The vote would be for the best candidate. Let congress put forth the choices THEN let the president choose the "winner."

So, a dictatorship? I beg to differ. It's almost a given that the President would choose "winners" by who more closely represents his views. It would place an undue burden on the Congress, instead of passing law, they would be bogged down voting on 535 members of the legislative branch.

No, absolutely no dictatorship. That's the point. I want the people to vote for the POTUS - not some corporate "sin" society that wishes to oppress the masses.

 

[WelfareQueen]

No. While I despise the current two party system, you would deny everyone equal representation when you abolish the parties. You can't have one or no parties, since in one case you only have one part of the country being represented, in the other, nobody would be represented. This solution is utterly radical in it's approach.

Instead of abolishing political parties and one branch of our government, strip the government down to it's bare essentials while keeping our branches of government intact and preserving political discourse.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, but as a person living in the country for nearly 50 years, I have seen the damage that "parties" can do. People are taught from an early age to be "joiners" and not "thinkers."

Politics cost voters the best options. We can still have representatives, but they will be judged as individuals - not on whether or not they cave unto political interests.

Jefferson and Madison wrote a great deal about the destructiveness of a two party political system. If you have not already, you should pull some of their quotes. They made some powerful arguments and they were both geniuses. It is hard to refute their logic.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

No. While I despise the current two party system, you would deny everyone equal representation when you abolish the parties. You can't have one or no parties, since in one case you only have one part of the country being represented, in the other, nobody would be represented. This solution is utterly radical in it's approach.

Instead of abolishing political parties and one branch of our government, strip the government down to it's bare essentials while keeping our branches of government intact and preserving political discourse.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, but as a person living in the country for nearly 50 years, I have seen the damage that "parties" can do. People are taught from an early age to be "joiners" and not "thinkers."

Politics cost voters the best options. We can still have representatives, but they will be judged as individuals - not on whether or not they cave unto political interests.

Jefferson and Madison wrote a great deal about the destructiveness of a two party political system. If you have not already, you should pull some of their quotes. They made some powerful arguments and they were both geniuses. It is hard to refute their logic.

I'll look at it, but if people actually listened to the founding fathers, we would never have had to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. We would not ever had to impose sanctions on any other countries and and we would have never needed to give away our personal liberties, or trade them for "security."

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

When you have a "political party" you have to consider "who runs this shin-dig? Us or some unseen enemy of my personal interests?"

Mad_Cabbie.

 

[BDBoop]

Yeah, this completely doesn't work for me.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, but as a person living in the country for nearly 50 years, I have seen the damage that "parties" can do. People are taught from an early age to be "joiners" and not "thinkers."

Politics cost voters the best options. We can still have representatives, but they will be judged as individuals - not on whether or not they cave unto political interests.

Jefferson and Madison wrote a great deal about the destructiveness of a two party political system. If you have not already, you should pull some of their quotes. They made some powerful arguments and they were both geniuses. It is hard to refute their logic.

I'll look at it, but if people actually listened to the founding fathers, we would never have had to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. We would not ever had to impose sanctions on any other countries and and we would have never needed to give away our personal liberties, or trade them for "security."

I agree with what you said 100%.


Madison is a hero of mine. He largely wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Check this out.


If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.


It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.



All men having power ought to be mistrusted.


The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.


The Chief Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No. While I despise the current two party system, you would deny everyone equal representation when you abolish the parties. You can't have one or no parties, since in one case you only have one part of the country being represented, in the other, nobody would be represented. This solution is utterly radical in it's approach.

Instead of abolishing political parties and one branch of our government, strip the government down to it's bare essentials while keeping our branches of government intact and preserving political discourse.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, but as a person living in the country for nearly 50 years, I have seen the damage that "parties" can do. People are taught from an early age to be "joiners" and not "thinkers."

Politics cost voters the best options. We can still have representatives, but they will be judged as individuals - not on whether or not they cave unto political interests.

Perhaps you can keep the parties, but teach people to be "thinkers" not "joiners." The damage does not come from the parties, but from the people who lead them. I would propose that instead of a speaker and a majority leader that you have a committee for each house, wherein all dictates are passed down and voted upon by the entire body, and likewise the body can make proposals and submit them to these committees. These committees would reflect the party in power plus one independent serving as the tiebreaker. Instead of letting one person run the process, let a group of people run the process. And no, this is completely different from the RNC and DNC.

Say in the House you have a nine person panel, and a five person panel in the Senate; the number of representatives from each respective party would reflect the majority party. If the Democrats were in power, the balance of power in the house committee would be proportionate to the strength of their majority. So if they held a slim majority the tally would be something like 5 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 1 Independent. If a large majority were in place, it would be something like 7 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Independent. If they were evenly split along party lines, it would be 4 apiece with 1 permanently presiding Independent serving as a tiebreaker. Apply the same method to the Senate.

This is something similar to the formula used with the Supreme Court Justices. I will also add that each committee would have a chairman who is bound by the rules governing the entire legislative body; or both sides, not just simply the majority. Both parties being represented in this committee would elect their own representatives, to guide their respective parties in the legislative process. I see creating microcosms of the Senate and the House as a way to streamline the legislative and political processes. A committee within the Congress, and committee within the Senate. It would make people think twice about who they nonchalantly vote into office on election day.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But there will no longer be any kind of party left to do that. The vote would be for the best candidate. Let congress put forth the choices THEN let the president choose the "winner."

So, a dictatorship? I beg to differ. It's almost a given that the President would choose "winners" by who more closely represents his views. It would place an undue burden on the Congress, instead of passing law, they would be bogged down voting on 535 members of the legislative branch.

No, absolutely no dictatorship. That's the point. I want the people to vote for the POTUS - not some corporate "sin" society that wishes to oppress the masses.

Simple, forbid corporations from donating anything to political candidates during their elections, and their tenure in office, prosecuting them if they do. The individual can donate but not the corporation. I take an aggressive approach to this simply because campaign finance law is flawed and it seems not to work anymore; mainly because Romney and Obama raised a billion bucks each last year.

 

[mskafka]

Perhaps you can keep the parties, but teach people to be "thinkers" not "joiners."

I agree. That is one of the problems; many people don't think for themselves. Candidates divert the peoples' attention, by focusing on wedge issues; which will never be fixed, until the bigger problems are addressed. But loyal partisans develop tunnel vision, and some miss the big issues...such as the suspension of habeas corpus.