• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we look for ways to vote on issues and not on parties?

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Back in the past there was a necessity for a more representative style of government. It was just simply physically impossible to have more democracy. You just could not tally votes or run issues in more of a real time method. Now with technology we find that system is broken. We have two parties and often people accept a person with few to none of their actual interests simply because they are part of a party. True liberals are not going to be happy with pseudo liberal nanny fascists who want to do things so extreme like ban soda. True Fiscal conservatives who want less public welfare are probably not going to be happy with a huge military budget sucking off their tax money for foreign welfare. You can go through a number of these examples. You also have people who have social issues that effect them who may vote for terrible people simply because of their stance on gay rights, abortion, gun rights, or other issues they feel strongly in. An example I can think of is a more libertarian person voting republican moral fascist only because that is probably your best candidate for keeping your gun according to the system. So because you want your gun you are forced to take away other freedoms and invoke a heavy religious bias simply because your choices are limited.

Not to mention the reps we elect take up issues when they want to. There may be some republicans who are tired of the constant waste of money to repeal obamacare while their reps fail to get budgets passed. Moderates in texas might be mad because so much money was recently wasted on an abortion argument while other more important state issues were clearly ignored. Right now we need legislators who have a concern to get a budget passed, and other issues can still go on, but because congress works on many pet issues and those issues are seen as propaganda wins over simply doing a job to pass a budget, it might be better to have A representative elected for your district that focuses on individual issues. So instead of having one rep who has to handle everything and may not be informed or educated enough on particular issues making all votes, you have an representative for you who represents you on a singular issue and can take the time to read monsterous legislation like the ACA and vote intelligently as they were elected to on the issue.

This sort of method would also keep the riders to a minimum as that particular elected group doesn't have other concerns. So we would not see things like pet projects slipped silently into other bills because simply those people would be in separate legislative procedures. We now have the technology and methods around to deal better with the overhead of a more democratic legislative process.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I figure i will go into some of the benefits and drawbacks I see with this. My idea is to elect reps to deal with the particular issues rather than all issues

1. A legislative process that is much better educated on particular issues and much better representative of the public on those issues. So you have economists and financial experts who are experts in those fields who can run to represent on a budget or government stimulus plans. You would have medical professionals dealing with things like health care issues. You could have things like experts on guns and experts on violence who actually argue out the counter points on gun control issues. You would see less comments like a woman can turn off her ability to get pregnant if she is raped, or we can make an off button for the internet.

2. More real time proposal and addressing of issues. The health care system did need some correction, and probably still does. You can put people in charge of doing that who are not going to wait until it is politically convenient for them to do so. Your budget group would be elected every year, but let us say an issue like addressing a need for sanctions against russia or something like that could be convened as the global climate changes.

3. More specific direction on issues. if you want a fiscal conservative for financial issues you can get one without losing a position on a social issue to larger government. If you want some guy to ban abortion, but not be putting us into war every other day or support the death penalty, you can get a truly pro-life person. You do not need to chose between issues that are important to you because a single legislator does not fit what you want. You can elect based on your ideas.

4. Destruction of the two party system. This would make it much harder for a two party system to exist and fund itself. This issues would be driving forces, and you would not need to bundle them into democrat or republican parties. Instead of being a dem or rep a person would either be for or against that issue.


Downsides.

1. democratic tyranny. The more democracy you have the more likely you are to have groups who can vote into effect legislative rules over the minorities and threaten freedoms. It would be more possible for the christian right to get a religious law into the books. Still, this would also be threatened by the president and the judicial system. We are seeing that the judicial branch has been responding to overreach in these issues in areas like gay marriage, abortion, and slapping down purely fascist rules proposed by the majority and imposed without concern for freedom.

2. Costs. I put this here as i am not really sure if this would be truly bad. More legislators means more people to pay. more voting means more overhead. OTOH we could avoid some of this by making certain legislative positions contracted rather than permanent.

3. idiots. It is easy to know where you personally vote on something like abortion. It is harder to know where you stand on a complex issue like a stimulus package. Is that stimulus going to work, or is it just flushing money down the drain. We do have a huge resource for people who want to educate themselves on the particular ideas, but it is clear many people love the two party system because it is free of thought on complicated issues. That person is a conservative republican so they will try to save money, and that person is a liberal spending dem so they will spend a lot of money. Sometimes those simplistic ideas do not address the actual solution to the problem. Maybe you have to spend money to get money like with the automotive bailout or the keystone pipeline? Maybe you should be conservative like not imposing a drug war or cutting certain social programs? One size does not fit all for the running of a complex country like the US, but there is a large percentage of the population who do not or are incapable of understanding the complex issues to vote properly. That problem is present now but would be worse, though we do have new abilities to educate ourselves on issues.

4. Too much voting. People may get sick and tired of voting on every single issue. This could lead to lower voter turnout and possibly not representing a middle ground where the issue has a preference but they do not feel like making the effort to vote either way. There is a lot of lazy in america.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,780
Reaction score
16,452
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Back in the past there was a necessity for a more representative style of government. It was just simply physically impossible to have more democracy. You just could not tally votes or run issues in more of a real time method. Now with technology we find that system is broken. We have two parties and often people accept a person with few to none of their actual interests simply because they are part of a party. True liberals are not going to be happy with pseudo liberal nanny fascists who want to do things so extreme like ban soda. True Fiscal conservatives who want less public welfare are probably not going to be happy with a huge military budget sucking off their tax money for foreign welfare. You can go through a number of these examples. You also have people who have social issues that effect them who may vote for terrible people simply because of their stance on gay rights, abortion, gun rights, or other issues they feel strongly in. An example I can think of is a more libertarian person voting republican moral fascist only because that is probably your best candidate for keeping your gun according to the system. So because you want your gun you are forced to take away other freedoms and invoke a heavy religious bias simply because your choices are limited.

Not to mention the reps we elect take up issues when they want to. There may be some republicans who are tired of the constant waste of money to repeal obamacare while their reps fail to get budgets passed. Moderates in texas might be mad because so much money was recently wasted on an abortion argument while other more important state issues were clearly ignored. Right now we need legislators who have a concern to get a budget passed, and other issues can still go on, but because congress works on many pet issues and those issues are seen as propaganda wins over simply doing a job to pass a budget, it might be better to have A representative elected for your district that focuses on individual issues. So instead of having one rep who has to handle everything and may not be informed or educated enough on particular issues making all votes, you have an representative for you who represents you on a singular issue and can take the time to read monsterous legislation like the ACA and vote intelligently as they were elected to on the issue.

This sort of method would also keep the riders to a minimum as that particular elected group doesn't have other concerns. So we would not see things like pet projects slipped silently into other bills because simply those people would be in separate legislative procedures. We now have the technology and methods around to deal better with the overhead of a more democratic legislative process.

I think a simple way to get people to vote on the issues a candidate stands for instead of party is to ban party affiliation on ballots and under each candidate's name a short list of the issues they stand for and if applicable a short list past votes that candidate has made that confirm or constriction what that candidate claims to stand for on the voting both walls a more extensive list pf issues and past votes that candidate has made and in extremely busy districts pamphlets can be handed out or maybe even a epub or pdf someone can quickly download to their mobile phone device about the candidates they can read while waiting in line to vote.
 

DVSentinel

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
5,647
Reaction score
1,579
Location
The Republic of Texas.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Back in the past there was a necessity for a more representative style of government. It was just simply physically impossible to have more democracy. You just could not tally votes or run issues in more of a real time method. Now with technology we find that system is broken. We have two parties and often people accept a person with few to none of their actual interests simply because they are part of a party. True liberals are not going to be happy with pseudo liberal nanny fascists who want to do things so extreme like ban soda. True Fiscal conservatives who want less public welfare are probably not going to be happy with a huge military budget sucking off their tax money for foreign welfare. You can go through a number of these examples. You also have people who have social issues that effect them who may vote for terrible people simply because of their stance on gay rights, abortion, gun rights, or other issues they feel strongly in. An example I can think of is a more libertarian person voting republican moral fascist only because that is probably your best candidate for keeping your gun according to the system. So because you want your gun you are forced to take away other freedoms and invoke a heavy religious bias simply because your choices are limited.

Not to mention the reps we elect take up issues when they want to. There may be some republicans who are tired of the constant waste of money to repeal obamacare while their reps fail to get budgets passed. Moderates in texas might be mad because so much money was recently wasted on an abortion argument while other more important state issues were clearly ignored. Right now we need legislators who have a concern to get a budget passed, and other issues can still go on, but because congress works on many pet issues and those issues are seen as propaganda wins over simply doing a job to pass a budget, it might be better to have A representative elected for your district that focuses on individual issues. So instead of having one rep who has to handle everything and may not be informed or educated enough on particular issues making all votes, you have an representative for you who represents you on a singular issue and can take the time to read monsterous legislation like the ACA and vote intelligently as they were elected to on the issue.

This sort of method would also keep the riders to a minimum as that particular elected group doesn't have other concerns. So we would not see things like pet projects slipped silently into other bills because simply those people would be in separate legislative procedures. We now have the technology and methods around to deal better with the overhead of a more democratic legislative process.

Democracy depends and has always depended upon interested and informed voters. Have you any evidence that even a significant percentage of Americans today fit that description?

Less than 60% voted in the last Presidential elections cycle.
What is the voting rates in Primaries and non-presidential election cycles?
How many people actually know or bother to look up how their Senator or Representative actually voted on a particular bill? Or if they were even present for a vote?
How many even look up those bills to see what is actually in them?
With the press today being so politically biased, where and how many sources does an American that actually wants to be informed have to read before they even get all the news, much less ability to form an opinion or get "facts" beyond the particular press's bias? Trying to stay informed has become time consuming hard work anymore and, at times, just plain confusing.
With today's political climate, how many good people even want to run and put their families through the "Circus" of an election?
If we broke candidates down by issues, then if you vote for one issue, do you really get anything different that what we have today? Even if you elect only based upon an issue, that person still should vote and participate in all issues.
I do agree the two party system should be dissolved, but more elections and narrowing what we vote for doesn't seem to be a good answer.
 
Top Bottom