Having political parties keeps us organized, but they also make us argue with each other. Is it best to keep political parties or to get rid of them? The reason I mention this is because George Washington didn't want us to make political parties. He also didn't want us to have a president for more than two terms, and that's been working out pretty well.
Realistically we have to keep political parties. It would be nice to see several more that had any clout though. But abstractly, I don't like political parties because they only create division. Plus any more the lines between them are so blurred because of the variety of issues and the conservative vs. liberal spectrum that they have almost lost their purpose other than to screw up good legislation. In many cases, the party lines have become way more important than the issues or the constituents represented.
If anything, I believe they corrupt this country and even divide it, I believe a person should be voted on what they stand for, not what they are, and their should be a limit on how much a candidate can spend on an election regardless.
guyfawkes Wrote:If anything, I believe they corrupt this country and even divide it, I believe a person should be voted on what they stand for, not what they are, and their should be a limit on how much a candidate can spend on an election regardless.
Well that may be beyond the topic of the thread, but I agree. Anymore, as long as you are a Rep. or Dem. and as long as you are charismatic and can raise cash, you most likely will win the election. That isn't how it should be.
Me personally, I'd like to see:
(1) more political parties with less emphasis on just Rep. or Dem. as this makes it too black and white, when most issues are gray.
(2) caps on the amount allowed to be spent on the election or some other system that would equally distribute the same amount for all candidates of all parties. (It is currently impossible to be elected if you aren't a registered Rep. or Dem.
(3) abolishment of the electoral college. This is ridiculous. The popular vote should determine the winner (no exceptions). And with current technology, that is not hard to accomplish. And if they were to keep the electoral college, which there is no reason to do, they should forbid the winner take all result that almost all states use which makes no sense.
Yes, we should and it's quite simple, because we created them. Politicians didn't create political parties, we the people created them. If WE didn't want paties, then we would not have the overwhelming partisan votes that we see. We the people would be demanding that Politicians in office (President, Governor, Mayor, etc...) that they would integrate OUR (not theirs) cabinet positions with those we feel is best. We want to blame politics, but we are the politics. Until we DEMAND a change, then we get what we want, which is partisan parties!
Honestly, I don’t think we should have political parties. I think we should simply vote the best man for the job. I have been a lifelong democrat, but only because I've always been told to be a democrat. However, this past election caused me to take a long look at why I side with Democrats. The more I looked, the more I realized I side with Republicans on most issues. That combined with the fact Obama has virtually no experience, no record, and some very shady associations in his past, caused me to vote Republican. Something I had never done before. As a result I will no longer vote by party association alone. I now consider myself an independent. Just my opinion!
We may agree with one parties stand on an issue and another parties stand on another. I think we would be better off calculating whats important to us as individuals before we vote.
Political parties would be ok if we were to curb the spending for an election. This would eliminate the ability of corporations to buy politicians and corrupt entire parties. Obama spent over 600 million dollars on the most recent election, he owes somebody. Dont think he wont be doing many favors from the office of the President. Just as Bush did, just as Clinton did. By curbing the amount allowed to be spent on elections, to make it fair for everyone, that will greatly reduce the power and influence the 2 current parties have. Until then we will never see anything but a 2 party system.
Beetle01 Wrote:Political parties would be ok if we were to curb the spending for an election. This would eliminate the ability of corporations to buy politicians and corrupt entire parties. Obama spent over 600 million dollars on the most recent election, he owes somebody. Dont think he wont be doing many favors from the office of the President. Just as Bush did, just as Clinton did. By curbing the amount allowed to be spent on elections, to make it fair for everyone, that will greatly reduce the power and influence the 2 current parties have. Until then we will never see anything but a 2 party system.
Amen! :thumpsup:
The Sniper Wrote:Honestly, I donât think we should have political parties. I think we should simply vote the best man for the job. I have been a lifelong democrat, but only because I've always been told to be a democrat. However, this past election caused me to take a long look at why I side with Democrats. The more I looked, the more I realized I side with Republicans on most issues. That combined with the fact Obama has virtually no experience, no record, and some very shady associations in his past, caused me to vote Republican. Something I had never done before. As a result I will no longer vote by party association alone. I now consider myself an independent. Just my opinion!
We may agree with one parties stand on an issue and another parties stand on another. I think we would be better off calculating whats important to us as individuals before we vote.
I completely agree.. The best man should win.. people should learn to vote for the person which who they agree with on the issues the closest.. alot will realize that doesn't always mean rep or dem everytime..