Do you ever want to scrap the "party" system and just vote for an individual? (1 Viewer)

[happykat]

Really, can anyone be 100% republican, democrat, independent, etc...?
I know I don't agree with any one party in totality.

Sometimes I think the party system is a road block, an obstruction to getting things done or doing what is ethical.

Anybody else feel this way?

 

[AndrewC]

Really, can anyone be 100% republican, democrat, independent, etc...?
I know I don't agree with any one party in totality.

Sometimes I think the party system is a road block, an obstruction to getting things done or doing what is ethical.

Anybody else feel this way?

I feel this way sometimes. However I think it is natural for humans to want to be part of a group. If you removed the current party system. Over time, another would take its place. This is natural. Also, do you really have to be 100% something to support it? Compromise is key to effective government, right?

 

[The Mark]

Really, can anyone be 100% republican, democrat, independent, etc...?
I know I don't agree with any one party in totality.

Sometimes I think the party system is a road block, an obstruction to getting things done or doing what is ethical.

Anybody else feel this way?

Sort of. I agree that the current system seems to be preventing needed change in many, many places. But the idea behind a party was originally to help speed up the process. If we had multiple persons all arguing for their own agendas, we would get nowhere even slower. I think.

Perhaps a good plan would be to elect persons so that there are more than 2 parties in effective play. I think that a few people from other parties have been elected, but not enough to really make a difference yet.

Or perhaps your idea would work, and groups of politicians who had related interests could agree to work together on a particular bill.

I'm not really sure, but if you think about every single person in congress being of (essentially) a different party.......ouch.....stuff would take centuries.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I think this is the best system in the world. I just think that there should be more room for third parties to breath.

People do vote for the person. The party is just a way of showing you what the guy is going to do when he gets in office. Most of the time I vote democrat, but I consider Republicans and have voted for one or two before just because they seem honest and determined.

 

[Shroomfarmer]

What I would really like to see is the entire voting system changed. I would like too see legislators draft multiple variations of whichever bill it is that they are trying to get passed and then let the public vote on the actual law, as opposed to having to vote on politicians or partys who voters may see eye to eye with on certain issues but not on others. There should also be an option for "none of the above", an option to voice that you don't agree with any of the available options. Now I know that with the current process in which elections are held that would be impossible because of the time involved. Our current system of voting is unbelievably outdated. Why do you think that more people vote for American Idol than for politicians? Because the process is simplified. They can pick up the phone, dial a number, and be done with it in a matter of minutes without having to miss work or even leave the house. With today's modern technology there is no reason why we should be using a voting system that has remained almost entirely unchanged since ancient Greece. People should be able to vote over the internet, phone, television, and in designated voting areas as in the current system. I honestly believe that had America's founding fathers had the technology avaliable to them that we have today this would be the way we would have been voting all along.

 

[bizznych]

Neither party represents my veiws,the democrats are the most pathetic "opposition" that I have ever seen.And the theme for the GOP should be "give 'em enough rope".They have used their "political capital" to bankrupt the country,decieve others into an unpopular war and present a totally corrupt administration.Let's see there is Rove,Cheney,Libby and many others under the eye of the law.The white house is saturated with demented characters like JACK ABRHAMOFF and KENNETH LAY,who could believe in this system?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Our current system of voting is unbelievably outdated. Why do you think that more people vote for American Idol than for politicians? Because the process is simplified. They can pick up the phone, dial a number, and be done with it in a matter of minutes without having to miss work or even leave the house. With today's modern technology there is no reason why we should be using a voting system that has remained almost entirely unchanged since ancient Greece. People should be able to vote over the internet, phone, television, and in designated voting areas as in the current system.

Do we really want to make it easier for the "American Idol" crowd to vote? People need to get off their rear-ends & take some action for whatever it is they believe. Making voting easier for lazy people is ignorant. Voting for our political leaders is a little more important than who wins American Idol. I can't believe anyone would seriously consider trivializing our national elections like this.

Yes, I do get tired of partisan politics. I find myself agreeing with Che on this - making room for "third parties" would improve our system.

...by the way - Lay & Enron were cooking the books all through the 90s - they got caught in 2001.

 

[Aurora151989]

I say get rid of the party system. This is because personally I don't understand parties and I believe that getting rid of the party system would also eliminate the electoral college which causes alot of our problems. ie the election of 2000. anyway, with individual ordinary people, we could get back to making the world a better place like presidents were doing 150 years ago.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

I say get rid of the party system. This is because personally I don't understand parties and I believe that getting rid of the party system would also eliminate the electoral college which causes alot of our problems. ie the election of 2000. anyway, with individual ordinary people, we could get back to making the world a better place like presidents were doing 150 years ago.

...with political parties I might add...

someone else stated that there's a natural tendency to belong to a particular group & thus the creation of political parties will always be a natural progression (or something like that)... & I agree...

I personally can't bring myself to join a political party as I don't fully agree with any of them (not even third parties) --- since I am conservative on most issues I find myself relating more to republicans than democrats --- BUT, that's not always the case.

Though we have political parties an intelligent voter will cast his/her vote for a candidate; not a party.

 

[Shroomfarmer]

Do we really want to make it easier for the "American Idol" crowd to vote? People need to get off their rear-ends & take some action for whatever it is they believe. Making voting easier for lazy people is ignorant. Voting for our political leaders is a little more important than who wins American Idol. I can't believe anyone would seriously consider trivializing our national elections like this.

Your absolutely right! What kind of world would we be living in if everybody was able to vote. How horrible! How is it that you can take half of my quote and make it sound like I'm saying that American Idol is as important as the national elections when all I was doing was citing an example of a voting system that ACTUALLY WORKS? In the current system, something like 20% of the population goes to the polls. The elderly, jobless and everybody else who has nothing else to do. This is because there are people who have important jobs like doctors and law enforcement who can't just drop their jobs to go vote. Seeing as how you completely igroned the entire point of what I had to say and only quoted a voting system example that I brought up, I wonder if anybody has anything to say about the actual point I made that the public should be allowed to vote on the bills themselves, not just on a person who writes the bills.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Your absolutely right! What kind of world would we be living in if everybody was able to vote. How horrible! How is it that you can take half of my quote and make it sound like I'm saying that American Idol is as important as the national elections when all I was doing was citing an example of a voting system that ACTUALLY WORKS? In the current system, something like 20% of the population goes to the polls. The elderly, jobless and everybody else who has nothing else to do. This is because there are people who have important jobs like doctors and law enforcement who can't just drop their jobs to go vote. Seeing as how you completely igroned the entire point of what I had to say and only quoted a voting system example that I brought up, I wonder if anybody has anything to say about the actual point I made that the public should be allowed to vote on the bills themselves, not just on a person who writes the bills.

If your job requires you to be working at your time to vote you can vote via absentee ballot (out of town on a business trip, military serving away from "home" address or over seas, etc.). Our system does provide a way for everyone to vote - it just takes effort. Our system has worked rather well for 200+ years - certainly not without flaws but the assumption that voting by phone, internet, etc would eliminate those flaws is a bit naive.

Your point - to make voting easier for the lazy. My point - voting should take effort.

by the way - the American Idol voting hasn't been without controversy - so much for your theory.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

What I would really like to see is the entire voting system changed. I would like too see legislators draft multiple variations of whichever bill it is that they are trying to get passed and then let the public vote on the actual law, as opposed to having to vote on politicians or partys who voters may see eye to eye with on certain issues but not on others. There should also be an option for "none of the above", an option to voice that you don't agree with any of the available options. Now I know that with the current process in which elections are held that would be impossible because of the time involved.

Here's the rest of your original quote --- nothing of real value - even you pointed out a flaw in your own idea.

--- none of the above? You're kidding; right?
--- are you talking about the options on this thread or for our national voting?
--- I certainly hope it's not the latter.

Your American Idol comparison wasn't the only way you trivialized our national elections. It's not something to take lightly. Or, something we should make "easy" just to get more folks to vote. It is currently rather easy to vote in America right now. It doesn't even take that much effort. Drive, walk, ride a bike, take a cab, or bus, car pool, etc. to your voteing location or to the board of elections if you don't know your voting location...cast your vote; go home & wait for the results. It's that easy as long as you have registered which can be done when renewing your driver's liscense.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I think the best way to make it so that your voting for the individual rather than the party would be to have no private donations. That way your not voting on who's flashier or better looking, but rather who seems like the most honest and determined guy out there. After all, all a party really consists of is its money and its platform.

 

[Shroomfarmer]

Here's the rest of your original quote --- nothing of real value - even you pointed out a flaw in your own idea.

--- none of the above? You're kidding; right?
--- are you talking about the options on this thread or for our national voting?
--- I certainly hope it's not the latter.

Your American Idol comparison wasn't the only way you trivialized our national elections. It's not something to take lightly. Or, something we should make "easy" just to get more folks to vote. It is currently rather easy to vote in America right now. It doesn't even take that much effort. Drive, walk, ride a bike, take a cab, or bus, car pool, etc. to your voteing location or to the board of elections if you don't know your voting location...cast your vote; go home & wait for the results. It's that easy as long as you have registered which can be done when renewing your driver's liscense.

You have the worst reading comprehension skills of anyone I've ever talked to. You've repeatedly missed the entire point of the post. That we should be able to vote on our laws, not on a person or party to make our laws for us. If I had just come on here and said "we should be able to vote on bills instead of partys" your immediate response would have been to say, well that's impossilbe because of the time and constant voting involved. I was just posing a possible answer to that problem. You only pay attention to the portion that you want to hear and ignore the rest. From what I gather, your position is that everything is fine just the way it is. We should stick with the current system of corrupt politicians who are more influenced by corporations, special interest groups, and religious groups with more money then sense than by the American public. In order to have a true democracy, the decisions have to be made by the people, not by some politician who's main goal is raising more campaign money instead of looking out for the welfare and freedoms of the people their supposed to be representing.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

You have the worst reading comprehension skills of anyone I've ever talked to. You've repeatedly missed the entire point of the post. That we should be able to vote on our laws, not on a person or party to make our laws for us. If I had just come on here and said "we should be able to vote on bills instead of partys" your immediate response would have been to say, well that's impossilbe because of the time and constant voting involved. I was just posing a possible answer to that problem. You only pay attention to the portion that you want to hear and ignore the rest. From what I gather, your position is that everything is fine just the way it is. We should stick with the current system of corrupt politicians who are more influenced by corporations, special interest groups, and religious groups with more money then sense than by the American public. In order to have a true democracy, the decisions have to be made by the people, not by some politician who's main goal is raising more campaign money instead of looking out for the welfare and freedoms of the people their supposed to be representing.

Go back - slow down - reread --- I addressed your quote hi-lighted in red when commenting that there was nothing of value written & that you, yourself, pointed out a flaw in your own idea. I think it best if you learn the English language before you attack ones reading comprehension (then & than are not interchangeable words - & it would be parties not partys).

No I do not believe our system is broke --- nor do I believe it is without flaws. Campaign finance reform seems to be a logical place to start. Changing the manner in which we vote will not even begin to fix any of the problems you brought up (corrupt politicians, big money special interest groups, etc.).

 

[DivineComedy]

Really, can anyone be 100% republican, democrat, independent, etc...?
I know I don't agree with any one party in totality.

Sometimes I think the party system is a road block, an obstruction to getting things done or doing what is ethical.

Anybody else feel this way?

I had been voting for more than twenty years when I moved to another state and had to register for a party. Now, if the head cheese of one party believes in “fluid“ interpretations of the Constitution, in love with judicial activists like Ginsburg that cannot read the English language to define “public use” like I do, and the other head says they are against judicial activists like Ginsburg, I know what party I must register under. That is the way the system works, and that system limits my choices to the point that I might wind up with what I do not want. There might be twenty issues currently on my mind, and there will not be so much as one candidate that matches all twenty issues, so I just have to pick which issues are fatal to our Constitution and which ones are just going to make us suffer for our sins.

People that vote a straight party ticket their whole life should just put a red star on their cap.

Some people see those political blinders as funny, but do not see themselves, they only hear the eloquence:

“President Bush says that the cooperation of other nations, particularly our allies, is critical to the war on terror. And he's right. And everyone in this room knows he's right. Yet this administration consistently runs roughshod over the interests of those nations on a broad range of issues -- from climate change, climate control, to the International Court of Justice, to the role of the United Nations, to trade, and, of course, to the rebuilding Iraq itself. And by acting without international sanction in Iraq, the administration has, in effect, invited other nations to invoke the same precedent in the future, to attack their adversaries or even to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons just to deter such an attack.” (John Kerry) http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6576

Then comes the parrot reinstating the main theme of what we are voting for:

“The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror.
Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty, and for the international court on war criminals, and for the anti-ballistic missile treaty and from the nuclear test ban treaty.” (Bill Clinton) http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...on.transcript/

As Bill Clinton spoke those words the audience looked like those doe eyed people lining the street as Hitler passed by. And I bet that not one of them knows whether or not the words “Supreme Court“ are in the Rome Treaty, but they voted for it. I call them traitors to the principle of “consent of the governed,” which this nation was founded on.

This is where we are headed:

“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

 

[Thorgasm]

I wish we could outlaw political parties but that flies in the face of the right to assemble. I don't think that giving money to people is free speech though. Outlaw campaign financing.