Do you think the party system in the US should be removed?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16610 posts) -

I, for one, think it should. I think the system is way too divisive among both politicians and people alike. Back in high School, I took a mandatory class called Participation in Government and when we learned about the two party system, the teacher actually said things like "for the good of the party" when describing how politicians act...

Does anyone else find a problem with that statement? "For the good of the party." Shouldn't it be something more like "For the good of the country?" I think the label of "democrat" and "Republican" is just way too divisive... It makes people argue instead of work together for the betterment of the country as a whole. I don't see any reason we can't just throw away the parties and have a more open forum type thing where people put forward their ideas and talk about it. I think it'd be a million times more productive than what we have now.

Maybe I'm just being naive and too idealistic... But I'd like for there to be a country where poeple don't vote for a candidate simply because they belong to a certain party. What does OT think?

EDIT: This applies to all parties.

#2 Posted by XaosII (16536 posts) -

The real question is what should it get replaced with? I think the problem isnt the two party system as much as it is gerrymandering, citizens united, and how lobbying works.

#3 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
There are two parties in the US? I always thought there was one with two different groups of ideas on abortion and gay marriage.
#4 Posted by thegerg (14719 posts) -
No. People should be allowed to ally themselves in a political party if they wish.
#5 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
The two party system we have now is terrible. Need a large third party.
#6 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

The problem with the limited number of powerful parties could be lessened if all the big money was removed from the political process. The smaller parties cannot muster anything worthwhile if they can't raise the funds. The system is gamed against grassroots politics.

#7 Posted by dave123321 (33667 posts) -
Third parties will save us
#8 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16610 posts) -

The real question is what should it get replaced with? I think the problem isnt the two party system as much as it is gerrymandering, citizens united, and how lobbying works.

XaosII

Ideally, it'd be just stand alone politicians who are voted for based off their ideas and thought processes. Byt here's me, being too idealistic.

#9 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6192 posts) -
I think we need LOTS of reform, more-so than a replacement right now. Gotta take baby steps.
#10 Posted by Storm_Marine (10767 posts) -

Having more than major parties has saved Canada in the past so why not?

#11 Posted by dave123321 (33667 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

The real question is what should it get replaced with? I think the problem isnt the two party system as much as it is gerrymandering, citizens united, and how lobbying works.

turtlethetaffer

Ideally, it'd be just stand alone politicians who are voted for based off their ideas and thought processes. Byt here's me, being too idealistic.

I'll say
#12 Posted by Omni-Slash (54404 posts) -
it's not the party system's fault that people are too dumb to try something new......
#13 Posted by XaosII (16536 posts) -

Ideally, it'd be just stand alone politicians who are voted for based off their ideas and thought processes. Byt here's me, being too idealistic.

turtlethetaffer

Way too idealistic. Its not realistic to expect each and every voting citizen to understand the nuanced positions of each candidate compared to each other to make an informed vote. Without at least labels of relatively easily understood party lines, voting will occur more on popularity and marketing than the actual issues a candidate represents - rather, more marketing and popularity than it does now. You can atleast expect a candidate you know little of what some of their positions might be due to their party affiliation.

#14 Posted by ghoklebutter (19327 posts) -
No. We just need to get rid of our bipartisanism.
#15 Posted by Jebus213 (8720 posts) -
Yes, make it a singe-party state and burn the constitution.
#16 Posted by TwistedShade (3147 posts) -

Yes, the two parties are more concerned with holding and keeping power, and preventing the other party from having it. Then when they do get it the flat out just ignore everything they do.

#17 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
i have no idea why people think third parties are some sort of panacea for our political problems
#18 Posted by comp_atkins (31216 posts) -

take some time and listen to how newt gingrich talks in interviews. he's never really talking about what can be done to help the nation. he almost always talks about what can be done to help the party... how many other politicians think the exact same way?

#19 Posted by Storm_Marine (10767 posts) -

take some time and listen to how newt gingrich talks in interviews. he's never really talking about what can be done to help the nation. he almost always talks about what can be done to help the party...

comp_atkins

he's written books on policies that the US goverment should adapt....

but he knows that in order for some of those policies to be implemented his party has to actually win....

#20 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

Yes. We should just vote on issues and not because someone has an "R" or a "D" next to their name, many people are just sheep that put themselves into a "Us vs Them" mind set where the opposite party are the "bad" guys. This just divides us and discourages free thought.

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

GEORGEWASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796


#21 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42588 posts) -
No, we just need more than two parties.
#22 Posted by VendettaRed07 (13998 posts) -

There are two parties in the US? I always thought there was one with two different groups of ideas on abortion and gay marriage.Zeviander

THe fact that these two things are the ones that kept deciding elections over and over is so ****ing sad. Its like nobody even pays attention to what else people who are running for office have to say.

#23 Posted by thegerg (14719 posts) -

No, we just need more than two parties.Stevo_the_gamer
We do have more than 2.

#24 Posted by zenogandia (912 posts) -

Like everyone pointed out, we need a third party who can actually compete with the mayor parties. It would be fantastic if we had three distinct choice making the political monopoly less stronger. Right now you either vote for a far-right group or for a slighty center right. It's awful.

In my country there were 7... 7! Parties these past elections. The 2 mayor parties got 98% of the total votes. There's something wrong with that picture.

#25 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

There's no real way to do that without completely changing our representation system to proportional or something. It's not like the two party system is ingrained in our constitution, it just sort of developed.

#26 Posted by XaosII (16536 posts) -

Like everyone pointed out, we need a third party who can actually compete with the mayor parties. It would be fantastic if we had three distinct choice making the political monopoly less stronger. Right now you either vote for a far-right group or for a slighty center right. It's awful.

In my country there were 7... 7! Parties these past elections. The 2 mayor parties got 98% of the total votes. There's something wrong with that picture.

zenogandia

The nature of "winner takes all" systems makes it impossible for a third party system to succeed. Heres a good video explaining why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

#27 Posted by osirisx3 (1744 posts) -

There should be no partys at all just the people

#28 Posted by zenogandia (912 posts) -

[QUOTE="zenogandia"]

Like everyone pointed out, we need a third party who can actually compete with the mayor parties. It would be fantastic if we had three distinct choice making the political monopoly less stronger. Right now you either vote for a far-right group or for a slighty center right. It's awful.

In my country there were 7... 7! Parties these past elections. The 2 mayor parties got 98% of the total votes. There's something wrong with that picture.

XaosII

The nature of "winner takes all" systems makes it impossible for a third party system to suceed. Heres a good video explaining why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Thanks, bro.

#29 Posted by Toph_Girl250 (47571 posts) -
If America can't ever get a third Independent Party in the near future, then perhaps America will just wind up in just having and voting for the Democratic Party instead.
#30 Posted by wis3boi (31036 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]No, we just need more than two parties.thegerg

We do have more than 2.

and it is physically impossible for any of the others to win anything or have any meaningful say

#31 Posted by Audacitron (909 posts) -

Remember, people fought for your right to party.

#32 Posted by thegerg (14719 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]No, we just need more than two parties.wis3boi

We do have more than 2.

and it is physically impossible for any of the others to win anything or have any meaningful say

No, it's not. Physics, in no way, prevents them from winning or having a meaningful say. I suggest that you take an intro to government class and an intro to physics class.
#33 Posted by thegerg (14719 posts) -

There should be no partys at all just the people

osirisx3
I disagree. I feel that people should have the right to assembly.
#34 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

The problem isn't party lines, but what people have to go through to get elected. The amount of money needed to run for high office in this country makes no sense what so ever. When you have to spend 10 times the annual salary of a position just to get into it, there is a problem with the system. There needs to be caps on the ability of both the people running for office and other outside party to provide funding. We have to force them to use grassroots methods with spending limits. We have to IDENTIFY all contributors so we know where this money is coming from.

#35 Posted by LordQuorthon (5266 posts) -

There are two parties in the US? I always thought there was one with two different groups of ideas on abortion and gay marriage.Zeviander

Don't forget guns. There's the "dun mess with mah guns" crowd and then there's the "Sok, keep your guns. But assault rifles is a little too much, dude." The latter ones hate freedom and want everyone to be gay and have weekly abortions.

#36 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150087 posts) -

Not a very well thought out topic.....parties exist because people choose to associate with those that have the same ideals as themselves. You can't stop that from happening.

#37 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -
There are two parties in the US? I always thought there was one with two different groups of ideas on abortion and gay marriage.Zeviander
Hah, yeah. One of the only real things you can vote for there is to have your President be anti gay marriage or apathetic on gay marriage.
#38 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"]There are two parties in the US? I always thought there was one with two different groups of ideas on abortion and gay marriage.MrPraline
Hah, yeah. One of the only real things you can vote for there is to have your President be anti gay marriage or apathetic on gay marriage.

Catchall parties really do suck. I always feel like there's no one worth voting for at a national level.
#39 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150087 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"]There are two parties in the US? I always thought there was one with two different groups of ideas on abortion and gay marriage.MrPraline
Hah, yeah. One of the only real things you can vote for there is to have your President be anti gay marriage or apathetic on gay marriage.

Parties adapt to constituents though....and it's not an issue the majority care enough about TBH..
#40 Posted by sSubZerOo (43018 posts) -
People should realize that parties are extremely weak compared to other nations.. In many multi party system nations, you simply vote for the PARTY.. And the party decides who is going to be in office if they win.. The United States is a candidate based system..
#41 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -
Yea but then you have a government with a mandate from only 37% of the voting population.