Do we really need political parties?

Do we really need two parties in our political system? It seems to me that this system causes more problems than solutions. All the partisian in fighting when the people need action. All because they want to get their pet projects funded so they can get reelected. None of this helps "We the People".

Are there really two parties to begin with. I think that there is only one party and the democrats and republicans are two sides to the same coin, two factions of the same party.

They both seem dead set on destroying this country.By financial means as well as by actual physical means.They allow corporations to run roughshod over the citizens of this country.They passed laws that caused our jobs to be sent overseas. Now they claim they want to create jobs. Well then why did you make it easier to send the work overseas?

Like all politicians they tell you one thing while doing another.The old magicians trick watch my left hand while my right hand reaches into your pocket.

It seems to me that the founding fathers ,as smart as they were in drafting our constitution, made a mistake by not outlawing political parties.

george washington and I think jefferson as well warned about the dangers of a 2 party system. I read somwhere the only difference between a dictatorship and the us democracy is in a dictatorship you get 1 choice for a leader, and in a democracy you get 2.....


we don't even have a democracy, we have a representative democracy. the problem is these representatives gang up and game the system for personal benefit and the benefit of the people who spent the money to put them in power in the first place

those 2 forces, money and the party system, are why I never get excited about any candidate. they all say they will change things, and they wind up being changed instead

reply to post by lonegurkha


Hmm.

Say we get rid of democrats and republicans.
Okay, they're gone. Forever.

People, being who they are, will just form the Bloopderpian Party and the Freemly Party.

Ignore the party, focus on the policy.

Doesn't it seem as though the policies change to suit whatever will get them reelected?

reply to post by syrinx high priest


They will do or say whatever will keep them in power so they can line their pockets at the peoples expense.

Originally posted by lonegurkha
Doesn't it seem as though the policies change to suit whatever will get them reelected?

Truth!
T'is why you should focus on the pols with actual values and principles.
(if there are any)

Absolutely not.
Politicians are idiots, and it's sad and pathetic we have these idiots ruling the world.
What we need are Scientists, Biologists,Physicists,Professors as a panel, for our world leaders, and for us to have the power to vote them out, when we disagree with what they do.
We definitely don't need corps, lawyers or ex military men running for the panel.
Not a president, but a panel of many different people with various skills, that can help us.
Too bad this will never happen.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


WOW great idea,I like it.

reply to post by beezzer


It seems to me that their ideas and policies always are to the benifit of the party and not to the benifit of the people who they always claim to represent.

By the way Beezer I always appreciate your posts.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


That would potentially be great. Honestly, if I would have lived 70 or 80 years ago, I would have predicted that something similar would be in place by now. While it may not be perfect, it makes so much more sense then what we have currently, especially with the way science is changing the world.

While there is an obvious use for those charming people that can sway an audience (especially since that is what most people focus on, subconsciously or not), it also seems fairly simple to understand that those charming people should not be the ones actually making decisions. Nor should the individuals with no special knowledge, other than how to get power and keep it, be involved in the actual policy making.

Because, in my opinion, that is when you get into the slow development of an altered system which is conveniently easy for other like-minded people to manipulate.

I'm not saying scientists are immune to all that power-grabbing. In fact, I understand that it is quite the opposite.

But, if I had to pick who is to be in charge, I'd go for a jerk with an inkling of what is going on, as opposed to 'just a jerk'.

This country needs a 3rd, a 4th, a 5th, a 6th, a 7th etc political party to really bring about restoring this country to where it should be.

With many many political parties to choose from, they would be forced to hammer out real solutions instead of just voting along party lines.

reply to post by HauntWok


Don't we in fact already have multiple parties ? The liberal,conservitive and libertarian to name a few.

reply to post by lonegurkha


In fact we do, however the problem is that they aren't getting the attention that they deserve. We need a lot of choice in our political structure and I think that's what's missing in America. We have the GOP and the Democrats who are just two sides of the same coin.

They aren't really representative of the people that elect them, they instead work for special interest groups.

I think that we need a lot more focus on the independent people who run for election. The problem is that the main stream media has their own agenda and don't give voice to the little guy. We should help the little guy get that voice because it's our voice.

reply to post by HauntWok


They don't want to give time to Ron Paul either and he's a republican. But then again he wants to fix the system and they wouldn't want to lose the gravy train.

reply to post by lonegurkha


When the founders wrote the US Constitution it wasn't immediately clear how dangerous political parties were.

By the end of Washington's presidency it was quite clear to Washington though and he addressed it in his farewell speech.

The problem is the parties control the current system so they are not going to outlaw themselves. Until it is made painfully obvious to the entire country what a problem the system is, we won't be able to fix it.

At the same time there are other newer problems the founders didn't address either, lobbyists, unions and corporations. All of these problems need to be fixed but it will not be fixed until either the system breaks or people leave and form their own system. We may not have enough time though.

According to many scientists, we are rapidly approaching what they call the Singularity, a period of scientific advancement when artficically intelligent programs write software, design hardware, and form theories. There will be without a doubt political science AIs. They will form political theories and they will apply them. Based on current trends in science and technology, especially holographic memory and optical computing, we could see this happen within 20 years. Just remember "The Computer is your friend."

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by lonegurkha

 

When the founders wrote the US Constitution it wasn't immediately clear how dangerous political parties were.

By the end of Washington's presidency it was quite clear to Washington though and he addressed it in his farewell speech.

The problem is the parties control the current system so they are not going to outlaw themselves. Until it is made painfully obvious to the entire country what a problem the system is, we won't be able to fix it.

At the same time there are other newer problems the founders didn't address either, lobbyists, unions and corporations. All of these problems need to be fixed but it will not be fixed until either the system breaks or people leave and form their own system. We may not have enough time though.

According to many scientists, we are rapidly approaching what they call the Singularity, a period of scientific advancement when artficically intelligent programs write software, design hardware, and form theories. There will be without a doubt political science AIs. They will form political theories and they will apply them. Based on current trends in science and technology, especially holographic memory and optical computing, we could see this happen within 20 years. Just remember "The Computer is your friend."

Thank you for your post. I didn't know that Washington had addressed this problem in his farewell speach. I agree with what you have to say.I think that even if AI can come up with a system that works, TPTB will deep six the idea and it will never see the light of day.The gravy train for the parties has been in place too long to be broken up with out a complete collaspe of the system.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


This issue was very well understood and completely addressed in the Federalist Papers by Madison where he speaks of the dangers of Factions.

Here he talks about why you must allow Factions even though they present a danger. Basically Liberty to the People will allow them to form Factions. It's that Liberty they fought for and to deny them that right would be against the principles the Revolution was fought for.

Madison first asserts that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by faction: either remove the causes of faction or control its effects. He contends that there are two ways to remove the causes that provoke the development of factions. The first, destroying the Liberty, would work because “liberty is to faction what air is to fire” but it is impossible to perform because liberty is essential to political life, Americans having fought for it during the American Revolution. The other option—creating a society homogeneous in opinions and interests—he sees as impracticable. Madison explains that common people’s opinions are always influenced by their emotions and their self-interest. They don’t always think clearly; they don’t approach situations in the same way. The diversity of the people's ability which make them succeed more or less and in which inequality of property derive is a right that the government should protect. Madison particularly emphasizes that economic stratification, which naturally exists in a world where different people have different skills, prevents everyone from sharing the same opinion. Madison concludes that the damage caused by faction can be limited only by controlling its effects.

Madison states “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man” so the cure is to control factions’ effects. He makes an argument on how this is not possible in a pure democracy but possible in a republic. With pure democracy he means a system in which every citizen votes directly for laws, and with republic he intends a society in which citizens vote for an elite of representatives who then vote for laws. He indicates that the voice of the people pronounced by a body of representatives is more conformable to the interest of the community, since again, common people’s decisions are affected by their self-interest.

He does say however that we can limit the negative effects of Factions.

He then makes an argument in favor of a large republic against a small republic for the choice of “fit characters” to represent the public’s voice. In a large republic where the number of voters and candidates is greater, the probability to elect competent representatives is broader. The voters have a wider option. In a small republic it would also be easier for the candidates to fool the voters, while in a large one, harder. The last argument Madison makes in favor of a large republic is, in a small republic there will be a lower variety of interests and parties, so more frequently a majority will be found. The number of participants of that majority will be lower, and considering they live in a more limited territory, it would be easier for them to agree and work together for the accomplishment of their ideas. While in a large republic the variety of interests will be greater so to make it harder to find a majority. Even if there is a majority it would be harder for them to work together because of the large number of people and the fact they are spread out in a wider territory.

A republic, Madison writes, is different from a democracy because its government is placed in the hands of delegates, and as a result of this, it can be extended over a larger area. The idea is that in a large republic there will be more "fit characters" to choose from for each delegate. Also, the fact that each representative is chosen from a larger constituency should make the "vicious arts"—a reference to rhetoric—of electioneering less effective. For instance, in a large republic a corrupt delegate would need to bribe many more people in order to win an election than in a small republic. Second, in a republic the delegates both filter and refine the many demands of the people so as to prevent the type of frivolous claims that impede purely democratic governments.

en.wikipedia.org...

The thing is, how will we stop government?
By blowing up the senate?
How will we the people ever change the system by doing the same insane thing voting for another candidate?
Will change truly only come, when politics is dismantled, most likely yes, but who can dismantle it?
And are people willing to?

reply to post by kro32


They were familiar with the concept of factions.

Note that the limitation to the negative effects of factions has no effect on political parties. The idea that a larger republic would create more choice has been subverted by the parties, by the concept of party primaries which allows the parties to create a monopoly on the political system.

They did not forsee these effects. Had they known to what extent parties would monopolize and subvert the system, I am sure they would of had them forbidden by law.

Regardless, 20-30 years from now the system is going to receive a massive shock from the rise of programs able to theorize and apply political/social science in ways that Madison, Marx, and Plato could never even remotely imagine.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Yes I know. I'm finishing up another degree in Political Science and soon it will become very different. That's another thread however.

Basically Madison was saying that to limit Factions (political parties) is not an option because it would deny people the Liberty to bring their ideas together and act as a unit. The only recourse than it so limit the effects of the faction.