Why must we have "Partys".

[Coldkilla]

Perhaps I'm not as educated as I ought to be but, this is what I gather:

Dem: For public spending, which includes (sometimes) increased taxes, big government.
Rep: Not for big spending, little government.

Now it seems (perhaps I'm stereotyping):
Dems = For pro choice, for gay marriage.
Repubs = Pro Life, against gay marriage.

Why cannot everyone be entitled to their own opinion without fear of pissing someone else off in their party? Every single party member (it seems) stands up for one thing while the other party all sits down. WTF?! Why? Say your for the war, for pro-choice, for gay marriage, like large government in certain areas but not others? I mean... I'm hearing all this stuff about all Republicans voting a certain way so they can defend their party, which includes bush, which means that they need to defend him... why?

I mean, why does there have to be a line? Why not a congress of individuals with their own unique set of values not tied to party lines? Why does there need to be an "independent party" when every single congressmen and senator should be their own person, an independent human being with their own independent ideas, who has been voted for based on the shared beliefs between the voted in congressmen/senator and the people?

 

[Nitemare]

Because the government wants to keep it that way. No 3rd party will receive federal funding until they achieve 5% or more of the vote. Most states have similar retarded laws in place as well.

 

[Coldkilla]

That makes no sense to me..the government I mean.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Perhaps I'm not as educated as I ought to be

You're right, you're not - and neither is the average voter, which is largely why we have the system we have. The populace is generally dumb as bricks, and they get to decide who's in charge.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
That makes no sense to me..the government I mean.

The 2 parties run the government, and structure the rules to favor themselves.

 

[yllus]

Politics cost money. Banding together people of generally similar views allows them to pool resources and bring down individual costs. It's very sensible from a fiscal point of view.

 

[fskimospy]

We have to have 2 parties because of the way the Constitution was written. Under the current system there will never be more then 2 viable parties on a national scale. Sure a 3rd party might win a localized election here or there but that's it.

That won't change because it would require a constitutional amendment to change our system of government away from single member district winner take all. Not only would the 2 parties not want to do this, but there really isn't any significant public pressure for them to do so either.

It really has almost nothing to do with relative levels of funding. If Ralph Nader got federal matching funds for other election cycles, it still wouldn't change the fact that in 99% of all cases either a Republican or a Democrat would win the seat because voting for a 3rd party candidate is an almost insurmountable collective action problem.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: yllus
Politics cost money. Banding together people of generally similar views allows them to pool resources and bring down individual costs. It's very sensible from a fiscal point of view.

Maybe. I think removing the Financial ability of Parties to Fund Election Campaigns might actually be a better choice though. Candidates need to raise their own Funding and that Funding must come from their Constituency. This will break the death grip the 2 Parties hold and allow Independents and Third Party Candidates to have a more even playing field.

Doing that will move the Power back to the Local Level. Instead of Policy dictated from a far off place, it will be dictated from Main Street.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yllus
Politics cost money. Banding together people of generally similar views allows them to pool resources and bring down individual costs. It's very sensible from a fiscal point of view.

Maybe. I think removing the Financial ability of Parties to Fund Election Campaigns might actually be a better choice though. Candidates need to raise their own Funding and that Funding must come from their Constituency. This will break the death grip the 2 Parties hold and allow Independents and Third Party Candidates to have a more even playing field.

Doing that will move the Power back to the Local Level. Instead of Policy dictated from a far off place, it will be dictated from Main Street.

I really don't think that will help either. The problem is not a statute based one, but a structural one. It's called Duverger's law.

While the wiki article mentions a few cases where it hasn't held as an absolute, there are usually extenuating circumstances (like the UK which has a mixed SMD/PR system). This just shows that it is exceedingly unlikely that a viable third party will ever exist in our system unless it is fundamentally changed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yllus
Politics cost money. Banding together people of generally similar views allows them to pool resources and bring down individual costs. It's very sensible from a fiscal point of view.

Maybe. I think removing the Financial ability of Parties to Fund Election Campaigns might actually be a better choice though. Candidates need to raise their own Funding and that Funding must come from their Constituency. This will break the death grip the 2 Parties hold and allow Independents and Third Party Candidates to have a more even playing field.

Doing that will move the Power back to the Local Level. Instead of Policy dictated from a far off place, it will be dictated from Main Street.

No way. We've already tried that on the local level here in Portland and it is a disaster that allows those in power to entrench themselves even deeper, and the people don't get a say at all. Plus, the system has already been scammed for over a million dollars (those caught have been convicted but that didn't get the money back).

 

[Craig234]

Well, we could just have one party for the whole country, with every political opinion?

Things tend to separate into two parties in this country. There's the unorganized issue, like the way that the bottom 80-90% of Americans are unaware of how they're getting screwed and losing a class war to the top 1%; they are split among thw two parties. There there are the organized issues - take gun control. By organizing, they'll pick a party who will side with them, because joining both parties doesn't get much done - so they pick the republicans. Gun control advocates can remain unorganized; or they can organize, and if they can't defeat the gun advocates and get the republican party to side with them, the much wasier approach is to side with the democrats. Insurers organize and side with republicans; trial lawyers at odds with insurers side with democrats. Business owners against labor rights with republicans; labor with democrats. Tobacco with republicans; anti-smoking campaigners with democrats. Low regulation freedom to pollute and profit advocates with republicans; protectors of the environment with democrats.

There can be but two great politial parties in this country.
- Stephen Douglas

Party is organized opinion.
- Disraeli

Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make the lies sound truthful and murder respectable.
- George Orawell

Those who think that all virtue is to be found in their own party principles push matters to extremes; they do not consider that disproportion destroys a state.
- Aristotle

The best Party is but a kind of conspiracy against the rest of the Nation.
- 1st Marquess of Halifax 1750

I find myself... hoping a total end of all the unhappy divisions of mankind by party-spirit, which at best is but the madness of many for the gain of a few.
- Alexander Pope 1714

Party divisions, whether on the whole operating for good or evil, are things inseperable from free government.
- Edmund Burke

No free Country has ever been without parties, which are a natural offspring of Freedom.
- James Madison

Let me now... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party.
- George Washington, farewell address

 

[Coldkilla]

All of this just makes me hate the system even more. So people vote on bills in the senate and in the house based on what their party says they must vote for, even though they may personally, strongly disagree. Theres a war between two partys, and even though republicans may disagree with Bush, they still vote for things like the war because their party says they should... WTF. If 70%+ disagree with things like Iraq (in this example), 70% of all elected officials should be voting for who they represent.. not their damned party.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
All of this just makes me hate the system even more. So people vote on bills in the senate and in the house based on what their party says they must vote for, even though they may personally, strongly disagree. Theres a war between two partys, and even though republicans may disagree with Bush, they still vote for things like the war because their party says they should... WTF. If 70%+ disagree with things like Iraq (in this example), 70% of all elected officials should be voting for who they represent.. not their damned party.

You were right before about needing to educate yourself. Plenty of politicians go against party. Don't be so simplistic.

 

[lyssword]

*parties

Sorry, had to do that

 

[nageov3t]

it's the inevitable result of people with similar opinions and views banding together to try and get things done.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Perhaps I'm not as educated as I ought to be but, this is what I gather:

Dem: For public spending, which includes (sometimes) increased taxes, big government.
Rep: Not for big spending, little government.

Now it seems (perhaps I'm stereotyping):
Dems = For pro choice, for gay marriage.
Repubs = Pro Life, against gay marriage.

Why cannot everyone be entitled to their own opinion without fear of pissing someone else off in their party? Every single party member (it seems) stands up for one thing while the other party all sits down. WTF?! Why? Say your for the war, for pro-choice, for gay marriage, like large government in certain areas but not others? I mean... I'm hearing all this stuff about all Republicans voting a certain way so they can defend their party, which includes bush, which means that they need to defend him... why?

I mean, why does there have to be a line? Why not a congress of individuals with their own unique set of values not tied to party lines? Why does there need to be an "independent party" when every single congressmen and senator should be their own person, an independent human being with their own independent ideas, who has been voted for based on the shared beliefs between the voted in congressmen/senator and the people?

It's all a pecker contest, joining the pack to enhance self worth.