Are large politcal parties a bad idea?

[marharth]

1. A lot of people tend to vote for the candidate that represents the party that generally has most of their values. People can't run and have every single smaller issue recognized by the public, they run with a party and the public sees them as more of a mascots for the party.

 

2. Political parties make it easy to corrupt governments. Makes it easier to fund a group, and not multiple different candidates with different values.

 

3. Political parties keep the same people in power for a long time.

 

 

I think political parties are a terrible idea. Would like to see what everyone has to say on the subject.

[greywaste]

I Don't like them either, but try running a nation with millions of people in it without them.

The only way to rein them in is by retaining as much local / state power as possible. States and regions having very different demogrpahics and needs, it forces the pols to work harder to keep their jobs at least

 

In Britain, Government at the local level nowadays is more like talking to some snotty secretary than feeling you are getting any kind of representation. And thats before you even look at how much UK policy gets decided by the EU

 

The Country I now live in, we have basically 5 Social Democrat parties masquerading under different names all pretty much keeping the status quo the exact way it's been since the 60's - apart from rising prices and all new "services" that we have to pay for yet didn't ask for.

[kvnchrist]

I think they should be banned. All they do is tare the country apart.

[grannywils]

I think a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" might be a good idea. Seems to me I've heard that somewhere before. Oh wait, I forgot..... Corporations are people now.... Silly me :wallbash:

[HeyYou]

It isn't necessarily the parties that are the problem, as like minded people will group together in any event, it is where those folks get their money from that causes the trouble. A good round of MAJOR campaign funding overhaul would do wonders toward removing the ability to buy candidates. Which is what we have now. Without the major influx of cash from special interests, maybe some of the third party candidates would stand a chance of getting elected, and we would end up with a more balanced government, instead of the quagmire we have now.

[Nintii]

I think a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" might be a good idea. Seems to me I've heard that somewhere before. Oh wait, I forgot..... Corporations are people now.... Silly me :wallbash:

 

Simply Brilliant !!!

 

And as the story goes, " ... some animals are more equal than others ... ".

 

Nevertheless, as much as I agree with most of Marharth's sentiment there is little you can really do about it, except of course when your bunch comes into power.

Then you can try to rein them in as Greywaste says " ... by retaining as much local / state power as possible ...", but that always depends on the country you're in.

And as for exorcising the the old devils.

What really did it for me was that in the UK, Labour decided to copy the Tories and Lib-Dems and got some fresh blood to steer their party.

Nothing like a good kick in the pants to wake you up a little.

[DarkWarrior45]

A lot of America's founding fathers, specifically James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, opposed the idea of political parties. In fact they wrote in Federalist papers 9 and 10 about how dangerous to the United States that political parties would be. Our constitution was written with the idea that there would not be political parties. Another interesting thing is that our first President, George Washington, is the only US President to date that was not a member of a political party. In fact I believe he also opposed the idea, and I've heard/read from somewhere (but can't back it up) that he stated that political parties would divide the country.

 

I guess the old farts were right.

[Vagrant0]

A lot of America's founding fathers, specifically James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, opposed the idea of political parties. In fact they wrote in Federalist papers 9 and 10 about how dangerous to the United States that political parties would be. Our constitution was written with the idea that there would not be political parties. Another interesting thing is that our first President, George Washington, is the only US President to date that was not a member of a political party. In fact I believe he also opposed the idea, and I've heard/read from somewhere (but can't back it up) that he stated that political parties would divide the country.

 

I guess the old farts were right.

The problem is that although nowhere near ideal, they are necessary. Without party backing a person would have to do most if not all the work involved with getting their names out there... And what you'd have would be little more than those occasional persons who have been running for president for the better part of the last century, who you've never heard about or even given second thought to.

 

Like it or not, they are kinda needed even in a modern era simply because it narrows down the number of people who can be running for president to only those who have substantial support. Now the matter of candidates being narrowed down as a good thing can be argued, but it does tend to keep out those with more radical ideas who also have a certain following... Such as the religious far right.

[Lisnpuppy]

The problem isn't the parties as much as the voters...or lack thereof...and how they regard the parties. Lots of folks don't vote and many, especial older folks...vote straight ticket party. Many folks still vote party vs party regardless of the actual PEOPLE in charge.

 

We must pay attention and when someone is elected...especially if you voted for them...pay attention...and if they don't do their job then vote them out of office.

 

If even the majority of folks that vote would pay attention then the politicians maybe would be more concerned about their jobs.

[Dan3345]

Another problem is we have people voting for the dead. Happened in the last US election for my Grandpa who died 17 years ago.

 

And while I do agree that party systems are generally oppressive they are needed. The biggest problem stems from what has been posted above is that special interests groups and anonymous private donors can contribute massive amounts of cash to a single candidate while smaller party classes like Libertarians for example go unheard of because they do not have the amount of money or the massive party backing that say the Republican and Democrat parties have.

 

What we need is a regulation perhaps to see that all private donations, are made public, and special interests groups. hold on Let me start from somewhere else. Lets say you are a repulbican candidate or liberal candidate. The Republican gets his money from the special interests groups that want to see more oil drilled, and more money given to the military. The liberal candidate gets special interest funding from the people who want to see more green jobs, and clean energy (both of those are BS in my opinion, but so are the republican special interests..) anyways, so what you would want ideally is a regulation that says a corporate friend of the candidate can endorse the candidate all they want, but they cannot donate any funds. All campaing donations must be made by the individual.

 

 

Sounds good theory, probably awful in practice.