Let's abolish all political parties!

Page 1 of 4 [ 53 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

11 Feb 2012, 3:45 pm

Having faithfully served my country in uniform, I think I'm entitled to an opinion or two.

1st Suggestion:

As George Washington wisely advocated that no poltical parties be formed, I advocate that we pass a consitutional amendment banning all political parties and caucases in this country because:

1) It cuts down on the partisan political BS!! !!

2) It cuts down the influence of special interests and lobbyists! :twisted:

3) You don't have one senator or respresentative from another state in a leadership position telling a senator or representative how to vote on a given item. :mrgreen:

2d Suggestion - Require all public office seekers to serve in the military because - if you make decisions that affect the very lives of those serving - then you should share the risk and the hardships! :salut:

-Longshanks

_________________
Supporter of the Brian Terry Foundation @ www.honorbrianterry.com. Special Agent Brian Terry (1970-2010) was murdered as a direct result of Operation Fast & Furious - which Barry O won't discuss - wonder why?

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

11 Feb 2012, 4:41 pm

Longshanks wrote:

2) It cuts down the influence of special interests and lobbyists! :twisted:

3) You don't have one senator or respresentative from another state in a leadership position telling a senator or representative how to vote on a given item. :mrgreen:

2d Suggestion - Require all public office seekers to serve in the military because - if you make decisions that affect the very lives of those serving - then you should share the risk and the hardships! :salut:

-Longshanks

Great idea. I've often thought the same.
:thumright:

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

11 Feb 2012, 4:56 pm

I doubt anything would come of it; you'd still have people with like goals playing as one team vs another and political parties would be alive and well just off-board. My bigger problem; if either 'group' wanted to get their ideas out to the American people they couldn't. IMHO things rallies like DNC, RNC, CPAC, etc. are good in that you finally get to hear from their own mouths what they're about again rather than the news twisting and distorting any which side to look better or worse than they already are.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

Declension
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

11 Feb 2012, 5:07 pm

I have come to the conclusion that Americans hate their government because there are only two parties. You need reform of your system so that there can be more than two parties.

unduki
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Oct 2011
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 652

11 Feb 2012, 5:12 pm

Longshanks wrote:

2) It cuts down the influence of special interests and lobbyists! :twisted:

3) You don't have one senator or respresentative from another state in a leadership position telling a senator or representative how to vote on a given item. :mrgreen:

-Longshanks

Ok, as long as you agree with everything my friends and I believe...

_________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass; it's about learning to dance in the rain.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

11 Feb 2012, 5:14 pm

Declension wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that Americans hate their government because there are only two parties. You need reform of your system so that there can be more than two parties.

I think a smaller third party (maybe 10 to 20% of congress) who perhaps didn't often dictate policy but acted as something closer to the 'swing' vote based on the quality of argument made by either side would be great. Clearly I think they'd need to be socially libertarian in standing, economics though they'd be better off without having a particular agenda so much as weighing issue by issue and arguments of each side for their merits. Essentially centrists with either one foot slightly over to the right, slightly over to the left, perhaps former blue-dog democrats with... not necessarily neo-liberals but the more city-conservative types.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

DC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

11 Feb 2012, 5:37 pm

How about the US bans everyone that has ever been in the military from standing for public office?

Will stop blood thirsty idiots from running the country and invading/slaughtering people all the time.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

11 Feb 2012, 5:48 pm

I don't think political parties are avoidable unfortunately. During the time period when the US didn't "technically" have any there were still Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians when it came to economics (one of the early issues being over a Federal bank), or Federals vs State autonomists. Organized political groups are inevitable in US or related systems

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

11 Feb 2012, 5:48 pm

Not a lot of point in doing that because, as they say, you'll still have coalitions effectively becoming political parties anyway. So what will you have gained?

You may wish to look up the political system that is used in the Channel Islands for more information. A similar thing happens there.

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

11 Feb 2012, 5:53 pm

I'd like to see the United States adopt a voting system that more closely follows the proportional representation model, personally.

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

11 Feb 2012, 5:59 pm

DC wrote:

Y'know... That's funny, because the "blood thirsty idiots" [sic] in my experience have almost always been chickenhawks and armchair patriots who've never experienced the chaos of a battlefield much less set foot on one.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:

11 Feb 2012, 6:09 pm

Declension wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that Americans hate their government because there are only two parties. You need reform of your system so that there can be more than two parties.

That would lead to Minority Rule ("Oligarchy"), which is one step away from Rule by One ("Monarchy"), which has been oh so successful in the British Empire...

:roll:

Declension
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

11 Feb 2012, 6:15 pm

Fnord wrote:

That would lead to Minority Rule ("Oligarchy")

Sorry, what?

In a multi-party system, a coalition needs to be formed which covers a sufficient portion of the Parliament. It doesn't mean that a party with 10% of the votes can govern alone.

The act of forming a coalition between multiple parties is democracy in action. The components of the coalition compromise and make deals, and decide what things they will not budge on. And in the end, a large portion of the population get at least something that they want.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

11 Feb 2012, 6:16 pm

Fnord wrote:

That would lead to Minority Rule ("Oligarchy"), which is one step away from Rule by One ("Monarchy"), which has been oh so successful in the British Empire...

:roll:

Not if you abandon First-Past the Post as a voting system. A two-party system is virtually a guarantee when it is used

CoMF wrote:

I agree

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:

11 Feb 2012, 6:17 pm

Declension wrote:

Fnord wrote:

That would lead to Minority Rule ("Oligarchy")

In a multi-party system, a coalition needs to be formed which covers a sufficient portion of the Parliament. It doesn't mean that a party with 10% of the votes can govern alone. The act of forming a coalition between multiple parties is democracy in action. The components of the coalition compromise and make deals, and decide what things they will not budge on. And in the end, a large portion of the population get at least something that they want.

Coalition? Do you mean like the one that's running the Greek economy into the ground? Or the one that's making Italy such a world-class power?

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

11 Feb 2012, 6:19 pm

Declension wrote:

In a multi-party system, a coalition needs to be formed which covers a sufficient portion of the Parliament. It doesn't mean that a party with 10% of the votes can govern alone.

I would've thought that proportional representation was the very embodiment of what the Founding Fathers intended: Prevention of a tyranny of either the majority or the minority.

Page 1 of 4 [ 53 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Let's abolish all political parties! Post Reply New Topic

Let's abolish all political parties!