Are large politcal parties a bad idea?

[HeyYou]

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.

 

Actually Dan, that is an excellent idea. Campaign money from private individuals ONLY. And with a cap at that....... Also, getting rid of paid lobbyists..... I think that would go a long way toward cleaning up our mess in washington.

[JimboUK]

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

 

I don't see how you can ban them, in a free country people should be allowed to form political groups/alliances.

[AncientSpaceAeon]

Hmm ... the last election held by my country had 44 political parties participating. Only 9 actually got a seat on the council. Only 75% of the people chose one of the 9 parties. The party who got the largest number of votes got 20.85%, while the smallest 3.77%. Sad, huh?

 

My opinion? Large political parties are good, just not too large or too small. Until we invent a better form of government, we have to stick with them.

[McMuffin]

Logically, zero parties is the same as one party, since there would the government, and not the government. I think you need at least one "opposition" party to keep the "establishment" party in check at any given time. On the other hand the more parties there are, the less weight each one carries and the more they resemble one party again.

 

The trouble we have in America is that everything is a complete package deal between our two main parties. If you're pro-gun, you have to be anti-gay. Pro-gay, then you're pro-union. Anti-union, and you're anti-immigrant. Each party has an almost totally reliable block of voters, and these wedges divide the populace so neatly in half that the balance of political will always comes from money. :wallbash:

Edited August 23, 2011 by McMuffin

[Amorous_Dead_Guy]

Logically, zero parties is the same as one party, since there would the government, and not the government. I think you need at least one "opposition" party to keep the "establishment" party in check at any given time. On the other hand the more parties there are, the less weight each one carries and the more they resemble one party again.

 

The trouble we have in America is that everything is a complete package deal between our two main parties. If you're pro-gun, you have to be anti-gay. Pro-gay, then you're pro-union. Anti-union, and you're anti-immigrant. Each party has an almost totally reliable block of voters, and these wedges divide the populace so neatly in half that the balance of political will always comes from money. :wallbash:

 

I disagree with the statement that all parties are completely united in the US.

a Social Conservative believes in a certain set of moral values, regarding abortion, family, etc. whereas a Fiscal Conservative's interests are vested instead in free market economies. They may well both be Republicans, or at least affiliated with the party, but this does not mean that their beliefs are the same on everything, a fiscal conservative may not give a monkeys about Same Sex marriages or anything that the Social Conservatives hold close. That being said, often some beliefs are shared within the party, and politics is America has become increasingly partizan in recent years. A political party is though, by definition, A group of people with similar ideals that form together in order to gain power. Therefore all elements in every party MUST have some common ground between them, or they cease to function as a party at all. That being said, unlike in the UK, where party loyalty is enforced by whips, America does not have a way for the party leadership to discipline a rogue member of the house, congressmen and senators are allowed to vote for the benefit of their representative state over their party. The range of political belief is staggering within a party, for example, the Tea Party, though aligned with some big name Republicans, is by no way any representative of the RNC, which are much more moderate.

Political parties need to be large, because, not only is it a sign that they have popular backing, they also have the resources to campaign thoroughly, and, even though they dominate the electoral process, this actually serves as a benefit to remove radical minority parties from gaining influence. If it were not for the FPTP system in the UK, there would by British National Party candidates, and this opens the window to radicalization, in either political direction, something that is dangerous to the stability of the country.

[draconix]

Reading over this, I'm beginning to think that large parties are not necessarily bad, but that we could use a few more options. I mean, we have more parties to be sure, libertarian, green, etc. But the big problem with our current system is that right now, if you're not associated with one of the big two, you probably won't even get on the ballot. It would be good to have more parties of the same approximate size. That way each one could check and balance the other, rather than the big two that presently seem to just sort of.. hold each other back from getting anything done. :tongue:

[HeyYou]

I don't think the parties are the problem at all. It is how the representatives get elected that has become the problem. If your major source of funding is from large corporations, then, if you want to continue to get that funding, you will tend to vote in ways to their advantage. Same goes for unions, PAC's, etc. It's the folks with the large piles of money to throw at campaigns, that decide what, and how, things get done. That is what needs to change.

[Amorous_Dead_Guy]

I don't think the parties are the problem at all. It is how the representatives get elected that has become the problem. If your major source of funding is from large corporations, then, if you want to continue to get that funding, you will tend to vote in ways to their advantage. Same goes for unions, PAC's, etc. It's the folks with the large piles of money to throw at campaigns, that decide what, and how, things get done. That is what needs to change.

 

Money is always derivative of power. Like it or not, the two are linked. The large political parties are SO large because they garner the most support than all the minor parties. It would be unfair to say that the Republican party is completely dominated by the super rich, their strongholds electorally are in the deep south, where statistically the people are much more financially disadvantaged than the North. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you are indicating that the power balance in countries such as America lies completely with the super rich. But, the concept that the superrich completely govern the democratic system is not true. Though they do have influence within the party itself, the only way they can actually influence agenda is through the influence of party agenda, which, in turn can only influence political affairs if the party gains power. Going by this, the people with the real hold over what gets done is the public, if they do not like the party, then they do not vote for it. Simple as. I do agree that, often with pressure groups, it is the most wealthy ones that are the ones that get listened to, but, on average, the most wealthy political action committees are also the most popular with the people, and therefore it is right that they should be the most popular.

Similarly, i take your point that a group or party that has many wealthy patrons, and invests this money in media campaigns may well influence the people through propaganda. However, I think that, though people are influenced by propaganda, there is also the same volume of counter propaganda coming from the opposing party, making the scales balance out. It is the same thing with PAC's, there are some really big ones telling us that something is bad, or important, and, as with most hot topics in society today, there is another one, equally big, telling us that it is good, or unimportant. People just have to ask themselves what they believe, and that is what the majority of politicians and everyday people do. Historically, we have seen examples of the power of public opinion to change what happens, for example when Ross Perot stood for election. He almost halved the Republican vote, and subsequently lost the party the election. Yes, i admit that Perot was wealthy to the point of being able to afford it, but it does show to an extent how the public, and independent candidates do influence American politics. Finally, though I personally I do not like Barak Obama, his victory in the primaries over Hillary Clinton, was because he was the most popular, and, because of his popularity, had the most money to spend on campaigning. (over 2 billion I think) Furthermore, bills such as FECA have meant that companies and wealthy individuals are limited in their donations to parties, stopping them from properly having a stranglehold over the polititan.

[HeyYou]

I don't think the parties are the problem at all. It is how the representatives get elected that has become the problem. If your major source of funding is from large corporations, then, if you want to continue to get that funding, you will tend to vote in ways to their advantage. Same goes for unions, PAC's, etc. It's the folks with the large piles of money to throw at campaigns, that decide what, and how, things get done. That is what needs to change.

 

Money is always derivative of power. Like it or not, the two are linked. The large political parties are SO large because they garner the most support than all the minor parties. It would be unfair to say that the Republican party is completely dominated by the super rich, their strongholds electorally are in the deep south, where statistically the people are much more financially disadvantaged than the North. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you are indicating that the power balance in countries such as America lies completely with the super rich. But, the concept that the superrich completely govern the democratic system is not true. Though they do have influence within the party itself, the only way they can actually influence agenda is through the influence of party agenda, which, in turn can only influence political affairs if the party gains power. Going by this, the people with the real hold over what gets done is the public, if they do not like the party, then they do not vote for it. Simple as. I do agree that, often with pressure groups, it is the most wealthy ones that are the ones that get listened to, but, on average, the most wealthy political action committees are also the most popular with the people, and therefore it is right that they should be the most popular.

Similarly, i take your point that a group or party that has many wealthy patrons, and invests this money in media campaigns may well influence the people through propaganda. However, I think that, though people are influenced by propaganda, there is also the same volume of counter propaganda coming from the opposing party, making the scales balance out. It is the same thing with PAC's, there are some really big ones telling us that something is bad, or important, and, as with most hot topics in society today, there is another one, equally big, telling us that it is good, or unimportant. People just have to ask themselves what they believe, and that is what the majority of politicians and everyday people do. Historically, we have seen examples of the power of public opinion to change what happens, for example when Ross Perot stood for election. He almost halved the Republican vote, and subsequently lost the party the election. Yes, i admit that Perot was wealthy to the point of being able to afford it, but it does show to an extent how the public, and independent candidates do influence American politics. Finally, though I personally I do not like Barak Obama, his victory in the primaries over Hillary Clinton, was because he was the most popular, and, because of his popularity, had the most money to spend on campaigning. (over 2 billion I think) Furthermore, bills such as FECA have meant that companies and wealthy individuals are limited in their donations to parties, stopping them from properly having a stranglehold over the polititan.

 

Not just the republican party, the dems have their patrons as well. If you think that the public has any control over what goes on in washington, you are deluding yourself. One primary example: The Health Care Reform Bill. Better than 60% of americans did NOT want that bill to pass, yet it did. So much for majority rules eh?

 

Also, voting merely gives you the illusion of a voice in matters political. How many times has a candidate talked a really good game, and then, once elected, all of that talk turned out to be just that. Talk. The promises of priorities, and things that needed to be done, suddenly get shuffled right after the polls close, and we end up with more of the same that we have been dealing with before. Obama is a prime example here. Very few of his campaign talking points got much attention after the election. He promised to close Getmo, he promised to get us out of Iraq, made noises about afghanistan. Well, lets see here, Getmo is still there, we are still in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we have expanded our little wars into Yemen, and Libya. The parties in power changed, but, the policies did not. Very little is different from what we would have seen, had McCain won the election.

 

And who chooses who runs, and who doesn't? The american people? Nope. We don't get a say in the matter. Our choices are lined up for us by the big parties, and who gets the most funding. Where does that money come from? Corporations, and the wealthy. We get the choice of a lesser of a selection of evils, with minor points of difference between them. The american electoral system is broken. The people in power represent the money that put them there, NOT the people that voted for them.

 

And it isn't just about campaign contributions any more either. Now, it seems, corporations are people too, and can therefore spend money on direct political advertising. I.E. telling you whom you should vote for.

 

If you think that the people have any control anymore, then just why is it corporate america gets all the perks, while the poor and the middle class keep getting cuts? (and why the middle class is rapidly disappearing.)

[Amorous_Dead_Guy]

I don't think the parties are the problem at all. It is how the representatives get elected that has become the problem. If your major source of funding is from large corporations, then, if you want to continue to get that funding, you will tend to vote in ways to their advantage. Same goes for unions, PAC's, etc. It's the folks with the large piles of money to throw at campaigns, that decide what, and how, things get done. That is what needs to change.

 

Money is always derivative of power. Like it or not, the two are linked. The large political parties are SO large because they garner the most support than all the minor parties. It would be unfair to say that the Republican party is completely dominated by the super rich, their strongholds electorally are in the deep south, where statistically the people are much more financially disadvantaged than the North. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you are indicating that the power balance in countries such as America lies completely with the super rich. But, the concept that the superrich completely govern the democratic system is not true. Though they do have influence within the party itself, the only way they can actually influence agenda is through the influence of party agenda, which, in turn can only influence political affairs if the party gains power. Going by this, the people with the real hold over what gets done is the public, if they do not like the party, then they do not vote for it. Simple as. I do agree that, often with pressure groups, it is the most wealthy ones that are the ones that get listened to, but, on average, the most wealthy political action committees are also the most popular with the people, and therefore it is right that they should be the most popular.

Similarly, i take your point that a group or party that has many wealthy patrons, and invests this money in media campaigns may well influence the people through propaganda. However, I think that, though people are influenced by propaganda, there is also the same volume of counter propaganda coming from the opposing party, making the scales balance out. It is the same thing with PAC's, there are some really big ones telling us that something is bad, or important, and, as with most hot topics in society today, there is another one, equally big, telling us that it is good, or unimportant. People just have to ask themselves what they believe, and that is what the majority of politicians and everyday people do. Historically, we have seen examples of the power of public opinion to change what happens, for example when Ross Perot stood for election. He almost halved the Republican vote, and subsequently lost the party the election. Yes, i admit that Perot was wealthy to the point of being able to afford it, but it does show to an extent how the public, and independent candidates do influence American politics. Finally, though I personally I do not like Barak Obama, his victory in the primaries over Hillary Clinton, was because he was the most popular, and, because of his popularity, had the most money to spend on campaigning. (over 2 billion I think) Furthermore, bills such as FECA have meant that companies and wealthy individuals are limited in their donations to parties, stopping them from properly having a stranglehold over the polititan.

 

Not just the republican party, the dems have their patrons as well. If you think that the public has any control over what goes on in washington, you are deluding yourself. One primary example: The Health Care Reform Bill. Better than 60% of americans did NOT want that bill to pass, yet it did. So much for majority rules eh?

 

Also, voting merely gives you the illusion of a voice in matters political. How many times has a candidate talked a really good game, and then, once elected, all of that talk turned out to be just that. Talk. The promises of priorities, and things that needed to be done, suddenly get shuffled right after the polls close, and we end up with more of the same that we have been dealing with before. Obama is a prime example here. Very few of his campaign talking points got much attention after the election. He promised to close Getmo, he promised to get us out of Iraq, made noises about afghanistan. Well, lets see here, Getmo is still there, we are still in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we have expanded our little wars into Yemen, and Libya. The parties in power changed, but, the policies did not. Very little is different from what we would have seen, had McCain won the election.

 

And who chooses who runs, and who doesn't? The american people? Nope. We don't get a say in the matter. Our choices are lined up for us by the big parties, and who gets the most funding. Where does that money come from? Corporations, and the wealthy. We get the choice of a lesser of a selection of evils, with minor points of difference between them. The american electoral system is broken. The people in power represent the money that put them there, NOT the people that voted for them.

 

And it isn't just about campaign contributions any more either. Now, it seems, corporations are people too, and can therefore spend money on direct political advertising. I.E. telling you whom you should vote for.

 

If you think that the people have any control anymore, then just why is it corporate america gets all the perks, while the poor and the middle class keep getting cuts? (and why the middle class is rapidly disappearing.)

Firstly I want to apologise for sort of necro-ing this thread, but I thought it courteous to say something in response, I

carrying on:

One constant draw back of a properly functioning democracy is, unfortunately as some may argue, tyranny of the majority. Or at least tyranny of the largest majority. I was completely against healthcare reforms under Obama too, as were the Republican party, (go figure, I'm Republican :P) as were many people, However, as President he does wield a large amount of influence in forcing through legislation. This is counter balanced because this is the only real power the president wields domestically at all. If healthcare is passed, and people do not like it, there is nobody to blame but the people who voted Obama in the first instance: The majority, or at least the biggest majority. Obama said that was what he planned to do from the start, and, then, if he gets into power and does it, it is nobodies fault but the electorates. It is not the companies that elect the president, it is the people, candidates can stand for nomination to sit on the ticket in primaries with no endorsement by the National committee at all, and the public are free to vote for whoever they want, just as they are, after reading through the party platforms, in the national presidential race. I completely agree that the funding that the candidates receives is a direct product of pressure groups, PAC's and private industry donations, but the prospective candidate is under no obligation to do anything for their patron once they are in power (if) It is also categorically illegal for them to do so anyway, and they get put in jail. It's called an Iron triangle, or revolving door syndrome, and America is doing it's best to stamp it out, incidences of it and the occurrence of Iron triangles have decreased drastically in later years. Democracy, or at least the indirect democracy that we have in America and the west today was especially formed to eliminate some aspects of mob rule. Instead of us governing the country, with all our little factions and arguing cells, we trust the governance of the country to the more educated, better informed, professionals, who, we should be able to trust to act in the best interests of the country in both the short and long term. I am against Obamacare, like I said, BUT I would not for a second claim that healthcare did not need to be addressed in America today, as is is/was spiralling out of control. My argument is that Obama acted for what he 'thought' was best for America, my issue comes with the method by which he reformed, and his timing. However, and I cannot believe that I am defending him here: he was obliged to try to hold to his election promises and try to do what was best. I fully look forward to demonstrating my displeasure at his failure next year in the election, as will many people, as is our constitutional right. And, if the majority decide that he was a failure, then he is gone. Majority rule in action. The effects of voting in action again.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Amorous_Dead_Guy