Do you agree that Americas political Party system is flawed and needs change?

Yes. Yes I do.

There's a saying here that America has two political parties, the right, and the far-right.

People are flawed. Not the parties themselves.

Yes. Yes I do.

There's a saying here that America has two political parties, the right, and the far-right.

MissLibrarian

Shut up, you dirty commie.

Yes. Yes I do.

There's a saying here that America has two political parties, the right, and the far-right.

MissLibrarian

truedat.pdf

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]

Yes. Yes I do.

There's a saying here that America has two political parties, the right, and the far-right.

DroidPhysX

truedat.pdf

I think the parties would be fine if only individual citizens could donate to them, and then only $1,000 each. No corporate or PAC donations whatsoever, individual citizens only. Further, citizens could only donate to someone running in their district (local and House rep) state (Senate) or of course a presidential campaign.

Then who would hold the reigns? That's right.

I think most would agree, but it's not like those in power will legislate changes that would compromise their comfortable positions.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]

Yes. Yes I do.

There's a saying here that America has two political parties, the right, and the far-right.

Rich3232

truedat.pdf

In need of some actual leftistsdave123321

Easy fix:  term limits.

Fewer reps and senators worrying about re-election means fewer reps and senators feeling pressured to adhere to party lines.

I would prefer there only being two political parties, a centre-left and centre-right one. In Canada we have 3 major parties, two left ones and one right one. Because the left is fractured here they split votes and while the Conservatives are the only right party they take every right-winged voter. It's the only reason they're winning elections here. Also, less major parties force politicians to be more moderate and pragmatic. I'd hate to have a party lead the country that is built on a strict ideology, whether that be left or right.

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]

Yes. Yes I do.

There's a saying here that America has two political parties, the right, and the far-right.

airshocker

Shut up, you dirty commie.

Try and extradite me McCarthy, European Human Rights say nahhh :PMissLibrarian

Psh, that's why we have the CIA. :P

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]Try and extradite me McCarthy, European Human Rights say nahhh :Pairshocker

Psh, that's why we have the CIA. :P

I think the parties would be fine if only individual citizens could donate to them, and then only $1,000 each. No corporate or PAC donations whatsoever, individual citizens only. Further, citizens could only donate to someone running in their district (local and House rep) state (Senate) or of course a presidential campaign.

Then who would hold the reigns? That's right.

br0kenrabbit

You know what seems easier than that?  Publicly funded elections.  Just ensure that the money spent by any campaign doesn't exceed that spent by any other and you remove the influence of money in elections.  I heard another good idea on the radio the other day, and I'm not sure on the exact details, but in other countries you write in your primary and secondary votes which leads to more party diversity.

In need of some actual leftistsdave123321

You could always do a write-in vote for me.

rofl I'll think of you airshocker when I 'trip and fall' in the bathroom.MissLibrarian

Lol. I would be upset. :( I wouldn't get to watch you eviscerate people I find distasteful anymore.

You know what seems easier than that?  Publicly funded elections.

theone86

I certainly wouldn't want one red cent of my tax money used to put another Bible-thumper into office. Besides, what if 100 people run for an open seat (it happens, look at the special election in CA a few years back), are we to fund all of them?

People are flawed. Not the parties themselves.

airshocker

Part of me thinks this.

I think the parties would be fine if only individual citizens could donate to them, and then only $1,000 each. No corporate or PAC donations whatsoever, individual citizens only. Further, citizens could only donate to someone running in their district (local and House rep) state (Senate) or of course a presidential campaign.

Then who would hold the reigns? That's right.

br0kenrabbit

The other part of me thinks this.

The other part of me thinks this.

coolbeans90

There's surgery for that. :P

Easy fix:  term limits.

Fewer reps and senators worrying about re-election means fewer reps and senators feeling pressured to adhere to party lines.

Oleg_Huzwog

I really have a fundamental disagreement with this.  For one, in terms of adhering to party lines, that can sometimes be a good thing.  If you have a majority of voters supporting the party line, but a handful of congressmen deviating from the party line because they're being courted by lobbyists then the party line draws them back to the needs of their constituents.  It also helps the government work a bit more effectively.  We're seeing the results right now of an intransigent segment of Congress.  When you have party leadership pressuring congressment for votes you can get more votes for a piece of legislation they don't agree with wholeheartedly, but that is nonetheless an important compromise.

I'll also say that if more terms in office necessarily lead to corruption in theory, then in practice that theory doesn't hold up.  There are plenty of good congressmen on both dies of the aisle that have been in Congress for multiple terms.  Furthermore, by being there longer they learn the intracacies of how Congress works.  Right now we're seeing that the older, more experienced congressmen are the ones trying to get deals done and legislation passed, the younger ones are the ones crossing their arms until they get everything they want.  Needing to seek re-election means needing to have a record to stand behind.  When congressmen don't have to worry about re-election they can push their ideological agenda without fear of reprisal, even if that means nothing gets done in Congress.

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]rofl I'll think of you airshocker when I 'trip and fall' in the bathroom.airshocker

Lol. I would be upset. :( I wouldn't get to watch you eviscerate people I find distasteful anymore.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

You know what seems easier than that?  Publicly funded elections.

br0kenrabbit

I certainly wouldn't want one red cent of my tax money used to put another Bible-thumper into office. Besides, what if 100 people run for an open seat (it happens, look at the special election in CA a few years back), are we to fund all of them?

Would you rather have a Bible-thumper outspending their opponent three to one because they have greater access to private money?  Public election level the playing field for everyone.  As for the second part, I'd have to see how other publicly-funded elections work in greater detail, but essentially yes.  I don't know if this means more money is required for an election like that or if it means less money for candidates, but the idea is that by allowing it to be open for everyone you don't exclude people without a large personal wealth and/or political connections.

I would prefer there only being two political parties, a centre-left and centre-right one. In Canada we have 3 major parties, two left ones and one right one. Because the left is fractured here they split votes and while the Conservatives are the only right party they take every right-winged voter. It's the only reason they're winning elections here. Also, less major parties force politicians to be more moderate and pragmatic. I'd hate to have a party lead the country that is built on a strict ideology, whether that be left or right.

Aljosa23

Out of curiosity, what issues do the left parties disagree on?

Out of curiosity, what issues do the left parties disagree on?

theone86

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party_(Canada)#Principles_and_policies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada#Current_policies

[QUOTE="dave123321"]In need of some actual leftistsnomsayin

Part of the problem is that not many Americans are very far left.  You can look at the 2004 election and Nader, or even 2000.  Gore was a fairly leftward candidate at a time when the country in general was more liberal and he still lost, albeit narrowly.  I'm a lot further left than most people, but I realize that I'm in the minority.  I'm more angry at the way our media and educational system are operating right now than at a lack of viable candidates or the system.  Even if we had the perfect voting system in place and the best liberal candidates we'd still be a minority, perhaps a larger one.

of course i do.

it should be replaced by a non democratic technocracy as soon as possible.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Out of curiosity, what issues do the left parties disagree on?

Aljosa23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party_(Canada)#Principles_and_policies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada#Current_policies

OMG, Liberal Party squabbling over a 3% difference in deficit reduction, I don't know that even American conservatives are that hawkish.  Still, it's nice to see a fiscally conservative party advocating for renewable energy.  Maybe if Republicans did that and dropped some of their social issues they might win more votes.

Would you rather have a Bible-thumper outspending their opponent three to one because they have greater access to private money?  Public election level the playing field for everyone.  As for the second part, I'd have to see how other publicly-funded elections work in greater detail, but essentially yes.  I don't know if this means more money is required for an election like that or if it means less money for candidates, but the idea is that by allowing it to be open for everyone you don't exclude people without a large personal wealth and/or political connections.

theone86

Well, that's a democracy in action: if more people support X candidate, then X candidate wins, regardless of my personal opinion. But at least the sweat off my neck didn't put him there.

If everyone who ran for a seat was guaranteed the same level of financial support as any other serious candidate, I can see whole segments of the population taking sabbaticals from work every election season. And why not? Maybe this year is the year.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Would you rather have a Bible-thumper outspending their opponent three to one because they have greater access to private money?  Public election level the playing field for everyone.  As for the second part, I'd have to see how other publicly-funded elections work in greater detail, but essentially yes.  I don't know if this means more money is required for an election like that or if it means less money for candidates, but the idea is that by allowing it to be open for everyone you don't exclude people without a large personal wealth and/or political connections.

br0kenrabbit

Well, that's a democracy in action: if more people support X candidate, then X candidate wins, regardless of my personal opinion. But at least the sweat off my neck didn't put him there.

If everyone who ran for a seat was guaranteed the same level of financial support as any other serious candidate, I can see whole segments of the population taking sabbaticals from work every election season. And why not? Maybe this year is the year.

Perhaps.  I do know that these sorts of elections have worked well at the state level, I think a lot of people realize they're not the political sort.  That, and you also have to remember that this goes from teh federal level down to the township level.  More people overall might run for political positions, but with more positions open to them that might not mean a bumrush on federal positions.

OMG, Liberal Party squabbling over a 3% difference in deficit reduction, I don't know that even American conservatives are that hawkish.  Still, it's nice to see a fiscally conservative party advocating for renewable energy.  Maybe if Republicans did that and dropped some of their social issues they might win more votes.

theone86

I think the parties would be fine if only individual citizens could donate to them, and then only $1,000 each. No corporate or PAC donations whatsoever, individual citizens only. Further, citizens could only donate to someone running in their district (local and House rep) state (Senate) or of course a presidential campaign.

Then who would hold the reigns? That's right.

br0kenrabbit

citizens should be kept as far away from politics as possible.

Democracy always leads to tyranny of the masses and then to tyrants.

"republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism" - Aristotle.

of course i do.

 

 

it should be replaced by a non democratic technocracy as soon as possible.

frannkzappa

Nah

Democracy delegating to experts on technical matters >>>>> that.

"republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism" - Aristotle.

frannkzappa

I thought that you hated Aristotle.

citizens should be kept as far away from politics as possible.

 

 

Democracy always leads to tyranny of the masses and then to tyrants.

 

"republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism" - Aristotle.

frannkzappa

Yeah, but Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.

The individual can be whatever he or she chooses to be.  Just because the majority of people in the US vote left or right doesn't mean that we should split these up just because they're popular.  They got that way for a reason and substituting one or two parties for a different system is just going to lead us into a similar situation with different names for the groups.  

People are generally dumb and orbit either loosely or strongly towards one group or the other depending on how that group sympathizes with other individuals or groups ideals.  There isn't a rule stating that any one person or group must do this, it's just the way it is.  Other countries have similar parties, just with different names or loyalties.  At least in the US it's pretty straightforward. 

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

of course i do.

it should be replaced by a non democratic technocracy as soon as possible.

coolbeans90

Nah

Democracy delegating to experts on technical matters >>>>> that.

"republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism" - Aristotle.

frannkzappa

I thought that you hated Aristotle.

i do, on all matters non-Plato inspired.

A large majority of what Aristotle said is said with the right idea and good intentions, but he was hardly ever right about anything.

this quote is a gem however.

The individual can be whatever he or she chooses to be. Just because the majority of people in the US vote left or right doesn't mean that we should split these up just because they're popular. They got that way for a reason and substituting one or two parties for a different system is just going to lead us into a similar situation with different names for the groups.

People are generally dumb and orbit either loosely or strongly towards one group or the other depending on how that group sympathizes with other individuals or groups ideals. There isn't a rule stating that any one person or group must do this, it's just the way it is. Other countries have similar parties, just with different names or loyalties. At least in the US it's pretty straightforward.

starfox15

No, that leads to inefficiency, agrarianism and then anarchy.

The American political party is not flawless and needs improvement.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

of course i do.

it should be replaced by a non democratic technocracy as soon as possible.

coolbeans90

Nah

Democracy delegating to experts on technical matters >>>>> that.

"republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism" - Aristotle.

frannkzappa

I thought that you hated Aristotle.

you do realize that the experts operate democratically, problems have to be resolved (though i much prefer polemics).

technocracy has certain democratic features, but it is not a republic or democracy.

I can't see any country with better political parties....they all serve self interest of people that elect them. LJS9502_basic

china has some very good ideas.

you do realize that the experts operate democratically problems have to be resolved (though i much prefer polemics). right?

 

technocracy has certain democratic features, but it is not a republic or democracy.

frannkzappa

Well, the problem is that a very large constituency loses its ability to exert influence on the behalf of its own well-being, which is one of my major problems with it. The others have been previously discussed at considerable length.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

you do realize that the experts operate democratically problems have to be resolved (though i much prefer polemics). right?

technocracy has certain democratic features, but it is not a republic or democracy.

coolbeans90

Well, the problem is that a very large constituency loses its ability to exert influence on the behalf of its own well-being, which is one of my major problems with it. The others have been previously discussed at considerable length.

that large constituency does not know what is best for itself.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I can't see any country with better political parties....they all serve self interest of people that elect them. frannkzappa

china has some very good ideas.