What political party fits me?

[daniel49]

why limit yourself to a party support the man or woman that most closely reflects your views.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
I've been doing some thinking (a dangerous thing... I know), but what if we developed a secure (haha) system for Americans to cast votes on individual major issues over the internet. The tallied votes would show up to the representatives in Congress and they could use that information to see how their constituents actually feel about a certain matter. Then however the congressman/woman actually votes would be posted alongside the people's decision. I think this would make for a lot better accountability and easier for the public to see how their elected officials stand on issues.

The flaw in that system is that it encourages too much politicking based on the results of polls. In other words, tyranny of the majority over the minority will inevitably be pushed.

As contradictory as it sounds, elected representatives are there to exercise their own best judgement as to what is best for the nation as a whole, not merely reflect that of the populace that elected him. Direct democracy is as evil as a dictatorship.

You bring up a good point. However, I think most people are somewhat reasonable and they know they can't get everything their way. With that said, people couldn't pressure congress to pass laws that would violate the constitution, as the courts would still have political immunity.

All objective evidence points to the contrary of people being even somewhat reasonable in such a direct democracy situation. What does happen is that, given the power but then the realization that they can't get everything their way, they become panic-stricken and irrational. They fracture into various divisive power groups seeking to force their various agendas against each other, and as tension builds, they become more vindictive against the opposing groups that they see as threats to their rights. Then they begin seeking legislation to deny the rights of others, first unpopular minorities with less overall democratic clout, then larger groups as they can be democratically isolated. Choas and panic flares as the rule of law collapses, and finally a leader from one of the groups emerges as a tyrant who promises to save all by the ruthless enforcement of law and order.

Sound familiar?

Makes sense, but at the same time I think we should be electing candidates based on the issues, not whether they put a D or R or L(?) in front of their name. I find it hard to believe that most democrats feel the same way about every issue, and republicans as well.

Of course the partisans don't feel the same way about every issue. In fact, they all find their parties confusing and contradictory. But they cling to their personal party on the basis of the fear they feel for the opposing party. In that fashion, our (almost) unlimited democracy actually strengthens bipartisanship, not weakens it.

In the words of George Washington as this Farewell Address, 1796:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course the partisans don't feel the same way about every issue. In fact, they all find their parties confusing and contradictory. But they cling to their personal party on the basis of the fear they feel for the opposing party. In that fashion, our (almost) unlimited democracy actually strengthens bipartisanship, not weakens it.

Yep. Our constitution virtually guarantees a two party system. It sucks in the form that not everyone within the party agrees on each issue. Parties are bad, but without very major changes to the consitution and election laws, we will have them for as far as anyone can see. Not only will there be parties, but there will be just two major parties. Sure, a third party can rise in power, but at the cost of one of the other major parties, in the end we are left again with two.

However, it does have some advantages, that people with fairly similar beliefs can join together to get most of their beliefs into law. The key is that people remember the "most" part. No one can ever, nor should they ever get all of what they want.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
Makes sense, but at the same time I think we should be electing candidates based on the issues, not whether they put a D or R or L(?) in front of their name. I find it hard to believe that most democrats feel the same way about every issue, and republicans as well.

Of course the partisans don't feel the same way about every issue. In fact, they all find their parties confusing and contradictory. But they cling to their personal party on the basis of the fear they feel for the opposing party. In that fashion, our (almost) unlimited democracy actually strengthens bipartisanship, not weakens it.

In the words of George Washington as this Farewell Address, 1796:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Interesting view - I have to admit that I'm still something of a political neophyte and haven't put that much thought into root causes of partisanship.

From the strategic perspective, partisanship is the only way for a politician to survive. To understand why two mighty parties have been constructed you can simply look back at the evolution of human societies. Individual human meets another, becoming a couple. The couple meet more humans, becoming a group. The group becomes a village. The village becomes a hamlet. The hamlet becomes a city-state. Nations are built. Why do they do it? Because humans need to group together and poor strengths/skills to ward off opposing groups. Very...natural?

I suppose in the current system, becoming a Bush supporter, or a Kerry supporter, or a <insert political figure you most agree with> supporter is the way to go. Realize that they require a party to survive, but you should endeavour support the candidate and not the party. I'm not much of a Conservative supporter here in Canada, but I sure do support Prime Minister Harper. It's the best I can do.

 

[BlancoNino]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

Read through this a bit. Looks like the Democrats have no problem bending the 2nd amendment, while complaining about the Republicans bending the 1st and 4th amendment. This just goes to show that the Republicans and the Democrats are selective when it comes to what rights' they will protect. Either way, more laws will be passed....and doubtful any of them will ever be repealed.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
Makes sense, but at the same time I think we should be electing candidates based on the issues, not whether they put a D or R or L(?) in front of their name. I find it hard to believe that most democrats feel the same way about every issue, and republicans as well.

Of course the partisans don't feel the same way about every issue. In fact, they all find their parties confusing and contradictory. But they cling to their personal party on the basis of the fear they feel for the opposing party. In that fashion, our (almost) unlimited democracy actually strengthens bipartisanship, not weakens it.

In the words of George Washington as this Farewell Address, 1796:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Interesting view - I have to admit that I'm still something of a political neophyte and haven't put that much thought into root causes of partisanship.

From the strategic perspective, partisanship is the only way for a politician to survive. To understand why two mighty parties have been constructed you can simply look back at the evolution of human societies. Individual human meets another, becoming a couple. The couple meet more humans, becoming a group. The group becomes a village. The village becomes a hamlet. The hamlet becomes a city-state. Nations are built. Why do they do it? Because humans need to group together and poor strengths/skills to ward off opposing groups. Very...natural?

I suppose in the current system, becoming a Bush supporter, or a Kerry supporter, or a <insert political figure you most agree with> supporter is the way to go. Realize that they require a party to survive, but you should endeavour support the candidate and not the party. I'm not much of a Conservative supporter here in Canada, but I sure do support Prime Minister Harper. It's the best I can do.

As a primer in partisanship and democratic participation I always recommend the following:

Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America ~ Stenven Rosenstone & John Hansen

Political Behavior of the American Electorate ~ William Flanigan & Nancy Zinglae

Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism ~ Pippa Norris




They're moderately easy reads (background in stats useful but not necessary), and can be obtained cheap since they're common college texts.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: zendari
One could say the same about republicans and drugs/abortion.

You could try to say the same thing about all issues, there are minor differences from person to person. However, I would tend to think the vast majority of Republicans are fairly similar on the issue of abortion (and possibily drugs). That is an extreme difference, where there are just a slight minority of pro-choice Republicans.

The issue with guns and Democrats is not an issue of slight minority vs large majority. No, the two parts are both fairly sizable.

Perhaps on abortion. As far as drug laws are concerned, the only real mention concerning Republicans and drug laws was in NY with Gov. Pataki, and that's 1 state out of 50.

There really isn't much difference on drug laws between the parties.