Reply With Quote
but once in office you'd see the same result you see now with party affiliation. that is, people bending over for the corporate sector and seeking further gain and profit.
This is generic in thought. But I believe politicians should be generic when representing the people of the nation as well.
And I know it wouldn't end the corruption taking place in Congress...but I believe it would help hold politicians more accountable in their decission making.
There should not be "Party" affiliation associated to any person running for government office. All too often in polling places I've heard too many people ask..."Which is the Dem or Rep button, lever or "chad". Not having narely a clue as to who or what they're voting for.
All political ads will only be allowed to be in black and white. Debate will be held dressed only in black and white. No color other than black and white would be allowed.
This experiment happened a while back when I was still in high school. The results were astounding. Many people who used to vote strictly along party lines found themselves voting for somebody who used to be affiliated to the opposite party because they simply preferred that candidate's view points.
The experiment concluded that people actually took more time to review both sides of an issue. And proved to be the best way for an actual majority belief to be represented in the voting process.
This happened back around 1974. It was the first time I looked at politics as an important part of someone's life and was impressed and convinced that this is the way it should be if it were to truly be a fair process.
but once in office you'd see the same result you see now with party affiliation. that is, people bending over for the corporate sector and seeking further gain and profit.
Old idea, has been tried before
will never succeed in our current society because Republicans and Democrats work together when they are threatened by an outside source.
Basically, they help each other to keep this a 2 party system. They are enemies until someone tries to ruin it. They team up and destroy any movement to change, to keep the status quo. Then, once they are sure it's only the 2 of them, they go back to fighting amongst themselves.
That's how it works. They are much too powerful right now for anything to change that
What would simple minded people be left to do then?
Yup. They do it right under our eyes too. Just look at the Baucus bill and the money chain.
I vaguely remember this...
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=2540952
On the Advantages of a No-Party State
A. Okion Ojigboa1
a1 Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley
Article author query ojigbo ao
One of the most important issues of political development and nation building in Africa is national integration. One major political ins ution which the new nations have employed in the pursuit of this goal is the political party. Ironically and unfortunately, political parties stand for division and cleavages. Thus as Seymour Lipset and Stein Rokkan have noted, in Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignment: an introduction (Glencoe, 1967), ‘“Party” throughout the history of western government stood for division [my italics], conflict, opposition within a body polity. “Party” is etymologically derived from “part” and since it first appeared in political discourse in the late Middle Ages has always retained this reference to one set of elements in compe ion or in controversy with another set of elements within some unified whole’ (p. 3). These indeed have been the main characteristics of political parties in most parts of Africa. That is, most of them are fragmentary, and thus contribute to national disintegration rather than fostering national integration. In other words, many political parties in most African nations have not functioned efficiently for the good of their respective countries.
__________________________________________________ ____
If anything can be safely assessed in our past 30 years is that we are becoming more and more devided as a nation than united.
Personally I have no problems with cleavage.
I've been screaming for this for awhile now. I'll say it again.
Nothing changes. Nothing gets better for the people until you completely eliminate party affiliation. It has to go. It would go a long way in allowing people to think freely and eliminate a large portion of the biased misinformation being tossed around by certain news agencies and shock jock political radio personalities. It would greatly curb special interest payoffs and political bribery. A representative on any level should have to stand on his own two feet and be subject to individual standards and personal ridicule rather than squat and hide behind his gang colors.
With that said. It'll never happen.
No, no the more the better in my book.
But who would nominate the canidates, THE PARTY. You'd have to get rid of the party machines or else you get what we've gotten this election and the last dozen elections. Twiddle dee or Twiddle dum.
That's the whole point. There wouldn't be Party nominations.
Elected officials would be forced to serve the public more so than agenda.
This is what the tea parties are about, they're not just targeting a political party they are targeting special interests being catered to at the expense of the people, and the political class trying to solidify a strangelhold on the access to goverment.
In concept yes. But party (Republican) members are financing these to the tune of their own "Party" interest. I can understand why far left wingers are so opposed...because the focus being made about these gatherings would emply to them they're being held in contempt of their own affiliation to the Democrat party.
If there were NO party affiliation associated with these gatherings I would suspect many Dems would be there marching right along.
By using this plan though, you're eliminating the right of the candidate to express himself freely, as he wishes to.
How so? One...Anyone...can express themselves without patheological consent.
How is it not freely to express one's self if not affiliated to any political party.
How is it not available to do? Would that not be held in contempt of our cons ution to do so?
How would being allowed to voice according to party affiliation be anymore allowable than to voice according to belief?
Why should it be according to affiliation more so important than to belief?
NO...it would not eliminate the candidate from being able to express themselves freely but more so to express themselves even more freely.
Not quite.
If I choose to express myself as a Democrat, or a Republican, I should be free to do so. If I choose to use colors in my ad, I should be free to do so.
Here are the two options:
1) Allow people to voice their opinions AND their party affiliation.
2) Allow people to voice their opinions, but they are NOT ALLOWED to have/voice a party affiliation.
Which do you think allows more liberty?
If people want to vote for an R or D instead of a set of ideas, that is their freedom as well.
Without a cons utional amendment, how do you eliminate freedom of association?
Great post. Thank you.
This is the delima many face. Our freedom to express is what makes this country the envy (and target) of so many across the world.
I'm not advocating loss of free speech or loss of expression. What I'm advocating is a fairness without government intervention. Parties are not listed as separte en ies of government...they are recognised as part of government.
It is cons utionally unfair to the people of this nation to be forced to choose any government affiliated ins ution. Therefore it is uncons utional to ask for vote as a representative of any government recognised party.
We as a people deserve and are cons utionally protected the protection from any government recognised en y and therefore should be allowed to base our vote not on party affiliation but rather through personal interpretation of that individuals beliefs without it being associated to affiliation. What we have now is federally funded polling places run by a 2 party system.
I do oppose the use of label and color association to sway peoples votes. I think if it's not (should be) uncons utional because according to federal law...the use of color (it never stated just color of race) would be descremetory according to running for public office.
Also...Free speech doesn't mean one has the right to adjucate government office based on any party's ability to raise funding through federal means. That's also uncons utional. If I were to run for president as the "Anything but Dem or Repub Party"...do I receive the same amount of governemt funding that the Dems and Repubs receive?...NO...once again unfair.
So in order to make it fair to all who might seek term....a standard of running should be impemented that did not allow favoritism to any candidate running for office. And if your message and views were strong enough to gain support of the people on it's own merrit...what difference sould it make what party affiliation you are associated with?
Libertarians will rise by 2050!
It'd be easier to eliminate the people that pay attention to party les.
That's not necessarily a good thing. I hold most libertarian views, but the party as a whole can be really wacky. The go too far with the personal freedom idea. I'm in agreement until their right interferes with someone else. Too many are in the Libertarian Party, using it for their Anarchist ways. I am fine with the general anti-authoritarian nature and am one among them that acknowledge we still need a minimum sets of law and government.
I see our Founding Fathers as the first Libertarians. They acknowledged personal responsibility is also necessary. That is at least something the libertarians have over liberals. Liberals want someone else to be responsible.
I think more important than attempting something like eliminating parties would be to stop allowing some people from voting. I would personally like to see some method of keeping people from voting who are on a government welfare style en lement. To allow people to vote for legislators that promise more of other peoples money is morally wrong, and should be illegal. It's a conflict of interest to the general welfare.
Please note. The cons ution does not give everyone the right to vote. It only gives cir stances that the voting cannot be denied for.
I have this ling standing fear that I see coming more true as the years pass. About 45% or so people don't vote for what's best for this nation, but for what money they can get prom other tax payers. You see it all the time, promised by politicians. More food stamps, More tax credits, Free health care, etc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
