America should get rid of political parties

Author: TheUnderdog 3 years ago

Posts

Total: 19

Topic's author

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

08.11.2021 07:02PM

I don't like politicians being partisan hacks that will say and do anything to get elected.

Every politician running should be an independent. People will know what they stand for by having their 3 main goals written down on a ballot and if these goals were bipartisan, this would be better. For instance, if I was running, my 3 goals would be:

1) Balancing the budget.

2) Increasing taxpayer count.

3) Repealing the income tax and replacing it with a capitol gains tax.

#1 and #3 are currently backed by the right and #2 is currently backed by the left. That is fine because unlike over 90% of politicians, I think for myself. Somebody can run against me that advocates for the following:

1) Pro choice on abortion

2) Pro choice on guns

3) More social programs.

If your a politician, nobody should care what your party is, only where you stand on issues. Politicians on both sides are partisan hacks that should think for themselves. But due to the groupthink of both parties, we see politicians often lying to their base to get elected. This has to end otherwise people treat their party like a religion, agreeing with the party no matter what instead of being a free thinker.

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,638

FLRW

08.11.2021 07:21PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Well stated. Political Parties came about to raise money to promote their members, but now with the Internet anyone can make their views available to everyone.

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,085

zedvictor4

08.12.2021 06:36AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

How would anything get done in your system?

And eventually like minded people would come together and form a collaborative group....AKA....A Political Party.

Being independent is useless, unless a majority agree with you.

And you would need a lot more than 3 ideas to be a successful politician.

thett3

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,064

thett3

08.12.2021 11:49AM

You can formally abolish and ban political parties but it doesn’t keep legislators from acting in a partisan way. Nebraska’s state legislature is nominally non partisan, but everyone knows that republicans hold the majority and they govern as you would expect republicans to.

Political parties exist for a reason: the goal of politicians is to get elected, and political parties craft broad coalitions that make getting elected more likely.

Topic's author

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

08.12.2021 09:42PM

-->

@zedvictor4

How would anything get done in your system?

Politicians argue about ideas and stick to their principles instead of letting a party think for them.

And eventually like minded people would come together and form a collaborative group....AKA....A Political Party.

But there wouldn't be huge groups of people that agree on everything. For example, lets say there are just 2 issues in American life; taxes and abortion. Some politicians would be for low taxes and pro choice. Some would be for low taxes and pro life. Some would be for high taxes and pro choice. Some would be for high taxes and pro life. In US politics, you see only 2 of these groups represented because if you were pro life and for high taxes(for example), and felt more strongly about abortion, you would be a partisan hack and change your stance on taxes for no reason other than it was the republican thing to think.

And you would need a lot more than 3 ideas to be a successful politician.

You can list all the ideas you care about on your section of the ballot. I just don't think the typical American cares about reading much beyond 3 ideas.

Topic's author

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

08.12.2021 09:44PM

-->

@thett3

Nebraska Legislature - Wikipedia states that although it is officially non partisan, each representative has a party. But getting rid of political parties makes people think for themselves in the long term.

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,085

zedvictor4

08.13.2021 06:45AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Yep...But you've still got to get things done.

So if you've got huge groups of people that do not agree, how do you move things forward.

Well, as you stated....A ballot....So majority decision.

And so for instance, if your four choices relating to abortion and taxes were put to a ballot and the results were 28%, 27%, 23%, 22%.....Then who's ideas and principles would eventually be ignored.

And who organises the ballot......Other than an authoritative body that ultimately, dictates procedure and is responsible for outcomes.

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

08.14.2021 02:24AM

-->

@zedvictor4

How would anything get done in your system?

And eventually like minded people would come together and form a collaborative group....AKA....A Political Party.

Being independent is useless, unless a majority agree with you.

And you would need a lot more than 3 ideas to be a successful politician.

Well stated... although if politicians were forced to wear the logos of their largest campaign contributors that might help us understand their real motives better.

Lemming

Debates: 8

Posts: 3,362

Lemming

08.14.2021 02:49AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

I agree, just being loyal to a 'name of a party, is not ideal.

But forming groups, to pursue goals, longtime part of social animals.

Though,

There 'is a reason that religions/churches, often splinter into many different denominations.

#10

drlebronski

Debates: 14

Posts: 993

drlebronski

08.14.2021 05:00AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

i think there should be more political parties which would give more options to voters furthermore i think the electoral college should be replaced with ranked choice voting

Topic's author

#11

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

08.14.2021 09:22PM

-->

@zedvictor4

People should vote on, “How pro life are you” and, “How high should taxes be” and other issues. The mean result determines public policy.

#12

Lemming

Debates: 8

Posts: 3,362

Lemming

08.14.2021 09:54PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

I think I'd rather people 'separate more into localized societies,

Where the law reflects their values,

Than compromise principles 'too much.

Topic's author

#13

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

08.15.2021 08:56PM

-->

@Lemming

But not everyone agrees in a society. Otherwise arguments wouldn’t exist in person.

#14

Lemming

Debates: 8

Posts: 3,362

Lemming

08.15.2021 09:15PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Two thoughts in my head, revolving around incompatible ideas.

Say slavery, no slavery, abortion, Anti-abortion, or big intrusive government, little government, the draft, so on, so forth.

It's hypocritical, galling, to live side by side with people who practice customs that one considers morally and ethically wrong.

There's two options,

One, is separation, people living in groups that practice life, as they see right.

Two, is eradication, whether in a mixed or separated society.

I think in the end, eradication comes about, if the values diverge far enough.

But even if they're diverging a 'fair bit.

Why live with people that practice a way of life that one considers immoral?

Sure there's tolerance,

To a 'degree.

It's like a classroom of students murmuring amongst one another,

Some vaguely defined level of noise, where it's too much, and the teacher screams at everyone to shut up.

. . .

But of course there 'is a measure of disagreement in society.

But does it make 'sense, to form tight knit groups with individuals that one disagrees on values with?

Americans are similar enough in values that we form a nation,

But why should we form 'smaller associations with 'everyone?

We shouldn't, I think.

Well. . . .

Actually I don't 'much care about politics. . .

Was just getting caught up in the speech of the moment. . .

For people with values though, I don't see why they'd want their children influenced unduly by people of opposing values.

Topic's author

#15

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

08.15.2021 09:24PM

-->

@Lemming

It's hypocritical, galling, to live side by side with people who practice customs that one considers morally and ethically wrong.

No it isn’t; it merely means you disagree with people. And not everyone is all liberal or all conservative.

There's two options,
One, is separation, people living in groups that practice life, as they see right.
Two, is eradication, whether in a mixed or separated society.

The first option can’t be forced (deporting all liberals to Europe or all conservatives to Africa) and the 2nd option is genocide.

Why live with people that practice a way of life that one considers immoral?

Because cancelling someone for their views by leaving them is stupid.

Americans are similar enough in values that we form a nation,

This is false. Name one American value that every single American supports and nobody outside of America supports. Many of our values are shared by Canada, a separate nation. There are no such thing as exclusive American values.

For people with values though, I don't see why they'd want their children influenced unduly by people of opposing values.

Because if your a Republican, having your kid educated by a democrat teacher is easier than educating them yourself.

#16

Lemming

Debates: 8

Posts: 3,362

Lemming

08.15.2021 09:34PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

I mean this for instance, if one was opposed to slavery, they'd find it 'painful, to live in the South of America, during slavery.

Difficult to their conscience, to raise their children 'amongst such a society, even if they taught them against slavery.

The kids'd still be influenced, maybe change gears for the worse, adopt customs you don't like.

It's make sense to be part of a political party, that aimed towards removing slavery.

You say it's not hypocritical, well I disagree.

. . .

The two options are 'quite feasible, and have already been in action for. . . ever?

People already live in communities where others are more or less like them.

And it's 'easy enough, to move and form communities of like minded individuals, if the matter 'matters to them.

Of eradication, perhaps I should have used a different word,

Or perhaps the Confederates 'were genocided, if you want to insist upon culture of a people changing, as genocide.

"Americans are similar enough in values that we form a nation," - Lemming
"This is false. Name one American value that every single American supports and nobody outside of America supports. Many of our values are shared by Canada, a separate nation. There are no such thing as exclusive American values." - TheUnderdog

Oneself being American, of the United States variety.

Joke aside, we've formed an identity, a system of shared values, though we still disagree a fair bit.

Just the way of cultures.

It's self evident.

Though I'll think about it and explain it if you insist again.

"Because if your a Republican, having your kid educated by a democrat teacher is easier than educating them yourself". - TheUnderdog

Such an action is lazy and immoral.

9 days later

Topic's author

#17

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

08.25.2021 07:52PM

-->

@Lemming

It's make sense to be part of a political party, that aimed towards removing slavery.

Or you could just be an independent opposed to slavery. I'm sure the republican party in 1850 believed in more than just an anti slavery platform. They probably were fiscally conservative as well. If you want high taxes but are opposed to slavery, the republican party doesn't represent you all the way. With all these political issues, somebody thinking for themselves would have a very small chance of agreeing with any party all the time.

People already live in communities where others are more or less like them.

Not always; I'm right wing and I live in one of the bluest states in the country.

Joke aside, we've formed an identity, a system of shared values, though we still disagree a fair bit.
Just the way of cultures.
It's self evident.
Though I'll think about it and explain it if you insist again.

What values are exclusively American? If it's freedom of speech, that value isn't unique to America. If it's the right to bear arms, 20% of America wants to ban all guns and there are many pro gun Canadians.

"Because if your a Republican, having your kid educated by a democrat teacher is easier than educating them yourself". - TheUnderdog
Such an action is lazy and immoral.

Most people don't homeschool. Do I think there should be more homeschooling? Yes. However, by your standard, the vast majority of people are immoral for having somebody that disagrees with them on even one issue educating their kids.

#18

Lemming

Debates: 8

Posts: 3,362

Lemming

08.26.2021 04:10AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Sure, one might prefer to be an independent, opposed to slavery.

But my 'guess, is that factions in politics follows roughly the same logic as factions of countries and arms.

Groups are able to enforce their will.

We all speak Americ- er, English in the USA (Mostly), have similar culture, environment, values repeated about.

Though 'maybe an American low/middle/high class is more similar to a (Insert Country) low/middle/high class,

Than an American high/middle/low class, I couldn't say.

Still, at a guess,

An American is probably more similar to someone from Britain, than someone from Afghanistan. Nation, not Ethnicity, I mean.

Not 'necessarily homeschool, but seems to me that people ought take an interest in their kids education,

Preferring their kids be educated by the values they think are right.

Whether it's a public school, private school, private tutor, parents themselves.

Topic's author

#19

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

08.26.2021 10:12AM

-->

@Lemming

Not 'necessarily homeschool, but seems to me that people ought take an interest in their kids education,

They can, but most teachers don't agree with the parents 100% of the time. Homeschooling I think is the only way to teach your kid 100% of your values. But most people don't want to homeschool their kids.