Do you think things would be better/worse if there were no political parties?

[SAWYER]

People get so hung up on one party or the other instead of what's really going on. I wonder how things would be if there were no party affiliation(no polarizing R/D/L etc) and people just ran on what they believed in etc.

 

[masteryoda34]

Yes it would be better, but people with similar beliefs would self-organize anyways. The two parties would never let this happen though.

 

[nageov3t]

formation of parties is inevitable.

50 people going after 1 goal can achieve more than 50 people going after 50 goals.

 

[MotF Bane]

Better.

 

[jpeyton]

Worse.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Next quesiton: Would the world be a better place without evil?

:roll:

 

[BoberFett]

The answer is not to outlaw parties, that's impossible. What should be done is to outlaw the labeling of parties on the ballot. Voting is one of the most basic public functions of a democracy, and there's no reason that we should support a private organization such as a party on that ballot. The party can still choose which of their party represents them on the ballot, but the ballot itself should be neutral. If voters are too lazy to do anything other than run down the ballot and tick everything with the letter their parents told them to vote for, too bad. Let people become informed.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The answer is not to outlaw parties, that's impossible. What should be done is to outlaw the labeling of parties on the ballot. Voting is one of the most basic public functions of a democracy, and there's no reason that we should support a private organization such as a party on that ballot. The party can still choose which of their party represents them on the ballot, but the ballot itself should be neutral. If voters are too lazy to do anything other than run down the ballot and tick everything with the letter their parents told them to vote for, too bad. Let people become informed.

:thumbsup:

 

[PrinceofWands]

The best possible situation is no parties. Second best would be 5-8 parties established along specific and differing theories of political science, rather than along unrelated platforms. After that every option pretty much sucks equally. This is more or less in line with most academic research into the subject (Norris, Flannigan, Rosenstone, Hansen, Zingale, etc).

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The answer is not to outlaw parties, that's impossible. What should be done is to outlaw the labeling of parties on the ballot. Voting is one of the most basic public functions of a democracy, and there's no reason that we should support a private organization such as a party on that ballot. The party can still choose which of their party represents them on the ballot, but the ballot itself should be neutral. If voters are too lazy to do anything other than run down the ballot and tick everything with the letter their parents told them to vote for, too bad. Let people become informed.

Wow one of the best and also most reasonable suggestions I've ever seen on P&N. :thumbsup:, I feel pretty stupid having never thought of this myself tbh.

 

[Jiggz]

Yes! For we cannot put the blame in a "blanket" proportion!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Next quesiton: Would the world be a better place without evil?

:roll:

Would ATPN be a better place without a guy named evil?? hmmm I wonder what the libs would say to that question

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Next quesiton: Would the world be a better place without evil?

:roll:

I know P&N would be better without Fear No Evil. Do you ever post anything of value and substance? Ever?


We would definitely be better off without only two political parties, i.e, if we had five or more. In an ideal world having no parties at all would be an tremendous improvement. Unfortunately, I doubt most Americans pay enough attention to individual candidates to make responsible choices without having some sort of party label to keep it simple.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
People get so hung up on one party or the other instead of what's really going on. I wonder how things would be if there were no party affiliation(no polarizing R/D/L etc) and people just ran on what they believed in etc.

I think it would be alot better if the 2 parties we have could stop acting like its jr. high school.

 

[Vic]

I can't disagree with the OP's intentions, but how exactly would we outlaw political parties without shredding the 1st amendment into tiny pieces?

 

[SSSnail]

Imagine!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic
I can't disagree with the OP's intentions, but how exactly would we outlaw political parties without shredding the 1st amendment into tiny pieces?

Exactly as I stated. You can't outlaw freedom of association but you don't have to give the letters R and D preferential treatment on the ballot.

 

[cubby1223]

And runoff elections.

With runoff elections you can vote for a third-party candidate without helping/hurting the main party candidates.

Otherwise, the 2000 Presidential election pretty much slammed the door on any third party becoming a possibility for a long time.

 

[gallivanter]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The answer is not to outlaw parties, that's impossible. What should be done is to outlaw the labeling of parties on the ballot. Voting is one of the most basic public functions of a democracy, and there's no reason that we should support a private organization such as a party on that ballot. The party can still choose which of their party represents them on the ballot, but the ballot itself should be neutral. If voters are too lazy to do anything other than run down the ballot and tick everything with the letter their parents told them to vote for, too bad. Let people become informed.

Yes, because regardless of party affiliation elected officials continue to vote and act their conscience and maintain all of their beliefs once they make it to Washington.

The reality is that party identification is as good of a heuristic as any other in the decision of voters. Should voters be better informed in a perfect world? Yes, of course. However, considering that elected representatives are going to toe the party line, particularly when they are newer and when it truly matters the most, voting for a R or a D makes perfect sense to me.



(some exclusions may apply to executive races, but those candidates are going to be much better known by the voters to begin with.)

 

[gallivanter]

And to answer the first question, absolutely worse.

People still wouldn't become more informed, which would only allow many unqualified or otherwise 'bad' candidates to get elected.

I also sure as hell don't wan't to see a multi-party system in America that would bog us down endlessly and unnecessarily.

 

[Craig234]

Worse. This is the same basic issue as the Libertarian flaw I see most, the assumption that destroying one structure of power will just leave a nice vacuum in its place.

Getting rid of parties would just result in a worse system, where the powerful interests still find a way to exercise the disproportionate power.

Instead, better reforms are needed - things like a ranked voting system so third party votes are safe to cast, and restricting corporate donations and 'legal personhood'.

 

[Elias824]

parties are inevitable even the founding fathers knew that, however some new parties once in a while would be a good thing, and I wouldn't be against taking party names off of ballots.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The answer is not to outlaw parties, that's impossible. What should be done is to outlaw the labeling of parties on the ballot.

I like this idea.

 

[AreaCode707]

Better. Many of the people who vote uneducated about the issues because they can easily vote along party lines would wind up not voting at all, and others would get educated before they go to vote. The results of elections would become much more representative of the educated voter, which was the original goal of a democratic republic.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The answer is not to outlaw parties, that's impossible. What should be done is to outlaw the labeling of parties on the ballot. Voting is one of the most basic public functions of a democracy, and there's no reason that we should support a private organization such as a party on that ballot. The party can still choose which of their party represents them on the ballot, but the ballot itself should be neutral. If voters are too lazy to do anything other than run down the ballot and tick everything with the letter their parents told them to vote for, too bad. Let people become informed.

Wow one of the best and also most reasonable suggestions I've ever seen on P&N. :thumbsup:, I feel pretty stupid having never thought of this myself tbh.

Strongly support this suggestion too, although the parties would just print out "how to vote" fliers and mail them out for people to carry in. Additional expense and not too much change. The theory is excellent though.