[Guest]

Ok, in America we have two basic political parties. Republican and Democrat. The last few times I voted I was just diapointed that I could not find a candidate that held to their party core beliefs. This seens to be a big issue with me and others I know. If I want to vote Republican (or Democrat) I want to be able to find someone who believes what the Republican party stands for. All I get are people who claim to be a certain party member and yet their track record and what they say publicaly only half matches what the party as a whole stands for. Right Wing this, Left Wing that, Conservative Democrat, Liberal Republicans........what is a voter to do. I started looking at the oddball parties to find a match for my beliefs. No luck! I have two Ideas here. What if we did away with political parties all together. People run on their own merrit and dont have to claim a party affiliation which may throw off a person who votes a straight ballott. This way even the candidate wouldent have to change some of their own personal beliefs to fit into a specific party. Or, if a person signs up with a party then they are held to holding up the parties core beliefs reguardless of the personal beliefs. Failure to do so would be cause to dismiss them from party membership. Do you have any thoughts on this? My degree is not in Political Science, so cut me a little slack. Thanks in advance.

[onetruth]

I do agree, the lines seem really blurred. John McCain has never known what he is, Republican or Democrat. But I think most people need a group with which to associate. It doesn't just happen in politics. It happens in all aspects of life...from boy scouts/girl scouts, various interests clubs in schools, church denominations, etc. It happens when people are classified by ethnicity, social status, etc. People are grouped together by others. People join clubs to have fellowship with other people that have similar interests. AA and NA...groups of people working together to (hopefully) get over addictions. Whether our political parties remain the same or not, I believe there will always be parties in place. And it's not like America really only has 2 parties. A person doesn't have to be either or. But I think the great, ideal candidate comes along very rarely.

[Guest]

The number of political parties is a very delicate balancing act that has to be got right for democracy to work (assuming democracy can actually "work"). My experience of this is in the UK and Italy. In the UK there are 2 dominant parties (Labour and Conservative). Traditionally they are left-wing and right-wing respectively but both have found the middle ground to be where the votes are, so I think a lot of UK voters are disillusioned in that their votes make little difference to policies and the two major parties pretty much just take turns at screwing things up for a few years until they are unelectable, then the other one gets a go. I always voted for the third party (Liberal Democrats), who never actually get into power. I didn't consider it a wasted vote because the two-party system offered inadequate choice and I felt three equal parties was what was needed to offer real possibilities for competition and prevent elections being a foregone conclusion.

The situation in Italy couldn't be more different. There are more political parties than you can shake a stick at, catering for the whole spectrum from communism to fascism. So I suppose everybody gets to vote for precisely what they believe in. Trouble is, you can only have one government, and with the votes spread over so many parties the only way anyone gets a majority is by forming coalitions. This might mean getting into some fairly uncomfortable partnerships, and the alliance of the various center parties is generally up for grabs, so they may be able to use this as leverage to force their own agenda. Long and short of it is that the outcome of an election is decided as much by behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing as by voting, and you sometimes get a government who have stretched their bargaining power to the point where they may be in no position to govern, since they are too much at the mercy of their coalition partners.

So what's the ideal situation? Personally I think it would be more meaningful to put individual issues to the public vote, rather than parties. I'm no expert on Political Science either, so I'd like to hear some criticism of that notion.

[itachi-san]

I'm stuck in the same boat. Even once the Democrat is decided I'm not going to be happy. Between McCain, Obama and Clinton all three are very flawed, not to mention that they're ALL senators! For those of you who don't know much about US senators, here's the skinny: they do little, if not nothing and have no management experience whatsoever. I think that only governors or mayors should become presidents.

So now what? I don't like any of the 3, and one of them is sure to win. Do I vote for Nader, or someone in a different party hoping they can reach their 5% of votes in order to become a recognized party or do I look at the here and now and vote for the lesser of 2 evils? It's really an awful choice to have to make. I'm all for getting a 3rd party involved because it's clear Reps and Dems are both corrupt and neither practices what they do or should preach. But the 3rd party thing has never taken flight. A huge effort was made to get Nader 5% in 2000 and that didn't work at all and now most of supporters at that time oppose him. So how is it going to work this year? It's not. Basically, we're gonna be screwed for a couple more decades at least. Something tremendous will have to happen to shake up the 2 party system and that isn't coming any time soon unfortunately.

In order to solve the problem in a fast effective matter I would propose that States get much more power and the Federal Govt. diminishes to basically only National defense. No IRS, no Social Security, no big budget Fed. Govt. plans at all. We would use the Fair Tax or something similar and have each state make most of its own laws. This of course, is not going to happen any time soon either...

[Guest]

Can you not have coalition - it works quite well in the Netherlands! It's more representative.

Can they get away with not sticking to the manifesto in the US as they do in the UK, say one thing to be elected and do something else?

I hate all the mud slinging - though it is important to know who/what type of leader you are electing.

[Guest]

I didn't consider it a wasted vote because the two-party system offered inadequate choice and I felt three equal parties was what was needed to offer real possibilities for competition and prevent elections being a foregone conclusion.

...

Trouble is, you can only have one government, and with the votes spread over so many parties the only way anyone gets a majority is by forming coalitions. This might mean getting into some fairly uncomfortable partnerships, and the alliance of the various center parties is generally up for grabs, so they may be able to use this as leverage to force their own agenda. Long and short of it is that the outcome of an election is decided as much by behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing as by voting, and you sometimes get a government who have stretched their bargaining power to the point where they may be in no position to govern, since they are too much at the mercy of their coalition partners.

So what's the ideal situation? Personally I think it would be more meaningful to put individual issues to the public vote, rather than parties. I'm no expert on Political Science either, so I'd like to hear some criticism of that notion.

What a great post!

Personally, whenever I'm disillusioned by choices for legislatures, I always vote 3rd parties. I sometimes will hesitate to do this for executive branch positions (I saw what happened in Minnesota with Ventura). In a legislative body, having only 2 parties causes a lot of rhetoric and little progress (that's why they call it congress ... it's the opposite of progress).

On the other hand, you bring up the good point of the problems of a multi-party system.

The other two ideas, that of eliminating political parties by the original poster and having a true democracy as you suggest, cause their own set of problems. The elimination of political parties wouldn't change the coalitions, but rather cause the politics to go even more behind scenes. The probelm with a true democracy is that people (as a collective) are idiots. When more people vote each week for American Idol than do in local elections, we have a problem. When people keep Jason Castro on to the final four of American Idol, we have a bigger problem. Sorry for those non-Americans or people without reality-show-loving spouses who don't get this comment.

So what's the solution?

It's very simple. You change the status quo in any productive way you can. You demand excellence from your elected representatives, and you forcefully find people to run against them when they disappoint you. This works better on the local scale than on the state and national scale, but all it needs is a critical mass of people to get both disappointed and productive with their disappointedness, and things will fix from the bottom up.

There's an old saying that if you don't vote, you can't complain. I've always felt if you don't try to run yourself or get other qualified people to run your own government, you can't complain. Personally, I'm happy with the small role I had with getting quality people on the school board in my local community, and have other local issues I'm going to try to throw my active support behind people who serve their community instead of take from it. I could care less who's going to be the next American President, because whether it's Obama, Clinton, or McCain, it's going to be more of the same. What I can control, is who decides what my daughter will learn in school, how the laws in my county are enforced, and what the municipality will do about the hard water problem. The war, economy, and other things that are at the national level are just not going to be handled well by the available people, and the sooner we all resign ourselves to that at this point in the election process and concentrate on the real things that can change and improve, the better we'll be.

[Guest]

We don't need parties. We need people with differing views to partake in congress, but no parties. Having political parties just complicates things and makes government very biased.

Just my dos pesos.

[Guest]

I'd say at a national level the most important function of democracy is to enable people to get kicked out of power when things start to get really bad (a kind of safety mechanism). Perhaps we can't hope for much more from it. I agree with rhapsodize that the more you can influence at a local level, the better things are.

Maybe giterdone is right that parties are a bad thing. They enable people to express a political leaning without knowing too much about the details, but perhaps that just encourages the wrong kind of democracy. Abolishing parties would mean that an informed voter would have to know much more about the people in power and potential candidates, as they would all have to be assessed on a personal basis. If you don't wish to be that well informed, you don't have to vote. I think you'd then have to put individual issues to the public vote since a vote for a person doesn't constitute a vote for a policy (whereas the party system attempts to combine the two). More complicated but I bet it would work better. So why does nobody do it?

[Guest]

I'd say at a national level the most important function of democracy is to enable people to get kicked out of power when things start to get really bad (a kind of safety mechanism). Perhaps we can't hope for much more from it. I agree with rhapsodize that the more you can influence at a local level, the better things are.

Maybe giterdone is right that parties are a bad thing. They enable people to express a political leaning without knowing too much about the details, but perhaps that just encourages the wrong kind of democracy. Abolishing parties would mean that an informed voter would have to know much more about the people in power and potential candidates, as they would all have to be assessed on a personal basis. If you don't wish to be that well informed, you don't have to vote. I think you'd then have to put individual issues to the public vote since a vote for a person doesn't constitute a vote for a policy (whereas the party system attempts to combine the two). More complicated but I bet it would work better. So why does nobody do it?

FINALLY, SOMEONE AGREES WITH SOMETHING I SAY. I FEEL SO HAPPY.

The problem is that (and don't attack me for saying this) people have grown lazy. In ye olden tymes, people actually had to collect more info on the candidates and they could make better choices. Now people just want to vote in their parties candidate. I am very afraid of this years election. We have 2 democratic clowns and an old republican who will probally die during his ignagural speech due to old age.

Our party system has started to mingle a lot. I'm mainly republican, but I belive in some democratic belifefs.

Edited May 8, 2008 by giterdone

[itachi-san]

I'd say at a national level the most important function of democracy is to enable people to get kicked out of power when things start to get really bad (a kind of safety mechanism). Perhaps we can't hope for much more from it. I agree with rhapsodize that the more you can influence at a local level, the better things are.

Maybe giterdone is right that parties are a bad thing. They enable people to express a political leaning without knowing too much about the details, but perhaps that just encourages the wrong kind of democracy. Abolishing parties would mean that an informed voter would have to know much more about the people in power and potential candidates, as they would all have to be assessed on a personal basis. If you don't wish to be that well informed, you don't have to vote. I think you'd then have to put individual issues to the public vote since a vote for a person doesn't constitute a vote for a policy (whereas the party system attempts to combine the two). More complicated but I bet it would work better. So why does nobody do it?

There's much more to this not being put into effect than people being lazy (though people certainly are lazy). My main issue is that we are now talking about no parties and some one becoming president of the US based solely on a personal ideal, which varies among almost citizen. Just imagine all the possibilities for each candidate. Sure there would someone who mirrors you're beliefs pretty closely, as opposed to now, but there would also be 1,000 other candidates, so what are the odds of your favorite being picked - very slim chances.

The thing is, it will all boil down to money again. Only the rich candidates will get a national spotlight, just like they do now. Every candidate is loaded because their supporters are only allowed to give them a small amount of money, so they must rely on their personal wealth to run on a national forum. This is a law that must be changed for anything to get set straight.

There is a reason for parties though, and that is so that there is a representative from a very large number of people of the country. I too, don't agree with this for many reasons. So what's the solution? Make everything possible be handled at a State level.

So, I would propose that the Federal Govt. only worry about our national defense (intelligence agencies, armed forces, etc...), and inter-state and international travel. And then everything else would be run on a state level. Then there would be a state that would closely mirror what you want this country to be an you could move there. If the Governor of CA legalizes pot and that's a big issue for you, you can then move to CA. Same goes for most every highly questioned law or lack there of. The US is huge, even some states are enormous. Things would be much more efficient if the States were more individual in their laws and societal idiosyncrasies. And each Governor would be like a mini-president, each with most likely very different values (at least much more of a choice than we have now)

[Guest]

I SAY BANJO JOE SHOULD BE THE NEXT PERSIDENT. WHO'S WITH ME?

(Being serious now) I agree with itatchi with each state having their own control. America is like Rome was, too big to handle. We already have the states, so the states should be left alone to make their own descisions. We could do a U.N. thing with one delegate from each state, while maintaining each states independence. For all of you who live in Europe, Do many small countries work well politically?

Edited May 8, 2008 by giterdone

[Guest]

Good post - not criticising just highlighting a few things...

There's much more to this not being put into effect than people being lazy (though people certainly are lazy).

My main issue is that we are now talking about no parties and some one becoming president of the US based solely on a personal ideal, which varies among almost citizen. Just imagine all the possibilities for each candidate. Sure there would someone who mirrors you're beliefs pretty closely, as opposed to now, but there would also be 1,000 other candidates, so what are the odds of your favorite being picked - very slim chances.

The thing is, it will all boil down to money again. Only the rich candidates will get a national spotlight, just like they do now. Every candidate is loaded because their supporters are only allowed to give them a small amount of money, so they must rely on their personal wealth to run on a national forum. This is a law that must be changed for anything to get set straight.

There is a reason for parties though, and that is so that there is a representative from a very large number of people of the country. I too, don't agree with this for many reasons. So what's the solution? Make everything possible be handled at a State level.

So, I would propose that the Federal Govt. only worry about our national defense (intelligence agencies, armed forces, etc...), and inter-state and international travel. And then everything else would be run on a state level. Then there would be a state that would closely mirror what you want this country to be an you could move there. If the Governor of CA legalizes pot and that's a big issue for you, you can then move to CA. Same goes for most every highly questioned law or lack there of. The US is huge, even some states are enormous. Things would be much more efficient if the States were more individual in their laws and societal idiosyncrasies. And each Governor would be like a mini-president, each with most likely very different values (at least much more of a choice than we have now)

Why isn't there an apathy party?

Does that mean one person should have control - like a king? One of the problems is that if you don't agree with the leader/king you may loose your job - difficult situation for a menial.

It's cheaper in other countries to run for leadership, but supporting a campaign which usually is close to slander and is 90% of the advertising part of the campaign (my figures-guess) requires huge budget - Perhaps limit exposure to get quality over quantity?

Interesting cos the EU is becoming more singular than secular as time goes on! Somethings do need local control for sure.

Like the bit about pot in CA becoming legal, and you can move there if it's a big issue?????

[Guest]

(Being serious now) I agree with itatchi with each state having their own control. America is like Rome was, too big to handle. We already have the states, so the states should be left alone to make their own descisions. We could do a U.N. thing with one delegate from each state, while maintaining each states independence. For all of you who live in Europe, Do many small countries work well politically?

Netherlands - population 16 million, coalition government. Is not suffering at all. Pancakes, krentebollen, croquetten and stampots seem to help.

Belgium - small, and seems to be ok

Germany France and UK are much larger seem to suffer from twisting and turning reactive as opposed to proactive politics.

Italy is on its own regarding a little bit of fixing (bit of grease required to make the wheels go round) if you greased it you can predict the election results. Needless to say it does not work for the public

Remember more countries are campaigning to join the EU, and it will continue to evolve - it needs time still, so I guess it's a case of watch this space!

[Guest]

In the UK there are 2 dominant parties (Labour and Conservative).

Local elections have put the Liberals in second place - the UK seem to be represented by a leader that is way off the majority - probably due to the £ poorly invested in US loans. Was that a political party decision or free market decision - it seems that the UK public are blaming the government. So many people in the UK want to blame the 'nanny state' rather than take responsibility.

[Guest]

There's much more to this not being put into effect than people being lazy (though people certainly are lazy). My main issue is that we are now talking about no parties and some one becoming president of the US based solely on a personal ideal, which varies among almost citizen. Just imagine all the possibilities for each candidate. Sure there would someone who mirrors you're beliefs pretty closely, as opposed to now, but there would also be 1,000 other candidates, so what are the odds of your favorite being picked - very slim chances.

You'd probably get a few front runners and most people would vote for them. Currently many voters just vote for the party they think best represents their views. At least if it were people on offer, their individual competence would factor into the equation more and their political leanings might be less of an issue, which might be more realistic since most good candidates are probably quite central in their position anyway.

The thing is, it will all boil down to money again. Only the rich candidates will get a national spotlight, just like they do now. Every candidate is loaded because their supporters are only allowed to give them a small amount of money, so they must rely on their personal wealth to run on a national forum. This is a law that must be changed for anything to get set straight.

That seems to really wrong in the USA. I think we have got that part right in the UK, and perhaps Europe as a whole. I'm not quite sure exactly how it works but election spending seems to be controlled so that it's not just a competition to see who can buy the most balloons.

There is a reason for parties though, and that is so that there is a representative from a very large number of people of the country. I too, don't agree with this for many reasons. So what's the solution? Make everything possible be handled at a State level.

I can't really comment on the rest of what you've said as I don't know enough detail about the USA, but it seems to make sense. I must say democracy as a whole seems to work on the principle that more than 50% of the voters must support the final conclusion, but in practice maybe that is the central concept that needs to be refined, as it results in 2-party systems or coalitions. I can see the problem: if you were voting for individuals you'd have to give the job to the one who gets the most votes, even if that's only 10% of the total. There's always a chance that the 10% winner could be some radical nutter whose views don't represent 90% of the population. Though in practice I'm sure the situation could be avoided, maybe by having a 2-stage process where the first vote narrows down the candidates to a few.

[Guest]

Was that a political party decision or free market decision - it seems that the UK public are blaming the government. So many people in the UK want to blame the 'nanny state' rather than take responsibility.

Whose fault is that? The government!

[Guest]

Well, we have to have parties, if not then the votes get split. Because the U.S. voting system is an Electoral College, if too many people run, all the votes are split and no one gets the required amount of votes. The presidential race with Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams was like that. There were four canadates, Jackson got the popular vote, but didn't get the right amount of electoral votes, and so, the Senate decided that Adams would be president, although, nothing was accomplished. That's why we have the two party system with the nominees...that way, all the democrats vote for the democrat, and all the republicans vote for the republican. I remember a student council election like the Jackson/Adams example, everyone in eighth graade who wanted to be in student council ran for president, and so, divided the eigth graders, because all the eigth graders were split, a seventh grader ended up winning. Had all the eigth graders had only one canidate to vote for, he probably would have won.

[Guest]

Whose fault is that? The government!

Of course some of it is - they intervene and spend taxes very unwisely and lots of minority groups have an apathy approach because the expectation is that the government should take care of it!

But that does not mean anyone should sit around waiting when they could do things for themselves - such as education, the school is used as a creche/nursery in the UK. People can't afford to not work less than two jobs per household and some are dong up to three jobs per household - how can good parenting and education participation take place in such circumstances - also the encouragement in the past of making it easy for people to be one parent families, subsidised too well previously - while they complain about the erosion of their jobless full time parenting positions " I have to work now cos the government are reducing my allowance". Unemployed people that can afford sky TV, MP3 and other gadgets - lets face it they are the ones with time to play with them!

On my soapbox there - but it is a nanny state, people have got used to being taken care of. It should encourage the correct attitude not just ATTITUDE!

[Guest]

Well, we have to have parties, if not then the votes get split. Because the U.S. voting system is an Electoral College, if too many people run, all the votes are split and no one gets the required amount of votes. The presidential race with Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams was like that. There were four candidates, Jackson got the popular vote, but didn't get the right amount of electoral votes, and so, the Senate decided that Adams would be president, although, nothing was accomplished. That's why we have the two party system with the nominees...that way, all the democrats vote for the democrat, and all the republicans vote for the republican. I remember a student council election like the Jackson/Adams example, everyone in eighth grade who wanted to be in student council ran for president, and so, divided the eighth graders, because all the eighth graders were split, a seventh grader ended up winning. Had all the eighth graders had only one candidate to vote for, he probably would have won.

That information or division should tell you something - It tells me there was no clear winner (leader), It tells me that coalition would give representation for the majority.

I would not mind betting that the student turnout was far in excess of an election turnout, note votes are interesting expressions too (not just how many are lazy - but how many are undecided/split or uninspired, just like the guy in this topic who votes for the underdog to make a statement, though its better to 'spoil' the vote - maybe there should be a turn up and show vote which would be a vote of non-confidence - which is the one that is missing. Its a case of voting out rather than in for man y people or the lesser of two evils, which is not the way people what it and a lot of people died fighting for; seems to have bee forgotten what was achieved and why it was achieved. Start by taking a perfect world then aim at something realistic out of that, then take into account who is the main contributor (manufacturer or sponsor of another kind), then find you are nowhere near the direction you stared off in. SO what's that all about? - politics or a game to gain power or keep a privileged position!

[Guest]

Of course some of it is - they intervene and spend taxes very unwisely and lots of minority groups have an apathy approach because the expectation is that the government should take care of it!

I was joking. It's the fault of anybody who goes round saying it's somebody's fault. Assigning blame doesn't solve problems.

But that does not mean anyone should sit around waiting when they could do things for themselves - such as education, the school is used as a creche/nursery in the UK. People can't afford to not work less than two jobs per household and some are dong up to three jobs per household - how can good parenting and education participation take place in such circumstances

As far as I can see the only solution to that is to turn your back on consumerism and live more cheaply. Got another idea?

- also the encouragement in the past of making it easy for people to be one parent families, subsidised too well previously - while they complain about the erosion of their jobless full time parenting positions " I have to work now cos the government are reducing my allowance". Unemployed people that can afford sky TV, MP3 and other gadgets - lets face it they are the ones with time to play with them!

Let's not confuse the wilfully unemployed with single parent families (especially with younger kids), though I know there is a lot of overlap. I wouldn't want to live off the state for reasons of personal pride, but I would always do whatever I felt was in my kid's best interests, even if it meant doing just that. I don't blame anyone for putting their children first, though I doubt that very much state benefits actually go to people who are doing that. The system sucks (talking about the UK here just so people know). But we have a situation which has arisen from a long-term breakdown of social structures like extended families. Increased mobility has largely caused this. Thatcherism boosted the economy and destroyed society. There's no quick fix now, the only answer I know is the one I put into practice: get out while you can.

[Guest]

I was joking. It's the fault of anybody who goes round saying it's somebody's fault. Assigning blame doesn't solve problems.

Start with blame - then take out the bad apple(s). If government blame remove the idiot, it usually comes down to loop holes as far as UK is concerned! I do blame the people who catch on, are trained to take benefit and who are assisted in their quest for easy street - hard to halt - will be done when politicians stop trying o win every single vote!

As far as I can see the only solution to that is to turn your back on consumerism and live more cheaply. Got another idea?.

That's easier said than done and yes, other idea is to prevent this taxing after government spending. Again as 80s when the £ went askew, it's happening with the investment in US going wrong for UK banks. Why is the UK staying away from the Euro? Maybe be it should go $ It is about time it decided, well dollar would be best cos the Euro is too expensive - pulling back a bit though... Gave me a Cheaper holiday!

Let's not confuse the wilfully unemployed with single parent families (especially with younger kids), though I know there is a lot of overlap. I wouldn't want to live off the state for reasons of personal pride, but I would always do whatever I felt was in my kid's best interests, even if it meant doing just that. I don't blame anyone for putting their children first, though I doubt that very much state benefits actually go to people who are doing that. The system sucks (talking about the UK here just so people know). But we have a situation which has arisen from a long-term breakdown of social structures like extended families. Increased mobility has largely caused this. Thatcherism boosted the economy and destroyed society. There's no quick fix now, the only answer I know is the one I put into practice: get out while you can.

Yep - look after the family otherwise it would be pointless to see them suffer for pride, that's what assistance is for - but not to grown over things not being handed out on a silver platter. UK structure went haywire years ago but that does not mean that it should limp out of a difficult situation. Build a motor way and people will use it to access cheaper areas to live and make the long haul to the city, problem is that the new available area rise in value and kills it for the locals who's children end up with no local strong economy to support the rising rents and house prices.

Thatcherism - when everyone was encouraged to buy the rented house if it was a state property at discounts for long paying tenants (60% off a house and 70% off a flat) caused a glut of buying and when lenders can fiance buyers with up to 100 times the amount that is invested in them - then you have double whammy of cheaper houses multiplied by a serious amount of lending 55 mortgages became 15% - 19% in some cases - AND WE NEVER SAW THAT COMMING! Loose your recently purchased cheap house on easily available money till the interest rate climbs above your disposable income and hey presto, hand in the keys walk away from your long lived in house and 2 years later after 80% of people have suffered the government step in with an idea - GOVERMENT AGAIN!

PS I got out too and retired!

[akaslickster]

It does not matter what party the person belongs to. There simply are not enough decent people around anymore, who are honest and are able to do a good job as a politician. That being said, you will never ever satisfy all the people all the time. Every year things get worse. Too much propaganda. Wasting tax dollars. Spend on important stuff, not campaigns.