Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

1 party rule in America?

Posted Feb 15, '14 at 9:46pm

Fiends

Fiends

114 posts

As it stands right now, it hasn't happened yet. However, if Texas or enough swing states were to turn reliably blue in presidential elections, it could put an end to anyone but Democrats being elected President. Assuming it goes on long enough, could have some consequences for the USA.
Naturally, judges grow old and retire and/or die. It would be easy to stack the courts with judges who are partial to the Democrats and their allies if Democrats were to hold onto power for long enough. . If nothing was to change, America's federally elected judges would all be Democrats. Given how judgments in the SCOTUS are sometimes split between party lines, it would be much easier for the Democrats to have things declared constitutional, whether they actually are or not. About the only thing that could stop them would be a major shift in politics, with blue states becoming swing states or even turning red over time, or a new party rising to power to contest the Democrats.
As it stands now, it's almost impossible for a party to get as much as their foot in the door with the way the system is set up. The requirements to take part in the presidential debates flat out bans independents and makes party candidates almost impossible to get in. So impossible, it hasn't happened since 1980, when Carter threw a hissy fit over John B. Anderson being allowed in. Naturally Anderson was ejected from the debates after the first one so Carter could have his way. I cannot imagine the rules changing to allow another party to contest the Democrat's power.
Obviously, this would most likely be a temporary problem as the political winds are always changing and SCOTUS judges die from time to time (old age gets us all eventually if nothing else does.). However, if the Democrats held onto power long enough, and managed to replace all of the judges with their hand picked members, it could have repercussions for a long, long time. I'm not going to judge on what those repercussions might be, since obviously only time would tell. The average length of a SCOTUS judge's tenure is about 16 years, just something to think about. Judges have lasted from 5 months to 36 years. If the SCOTUS ended up packed with young (relatively) justices, especially ones with a strong partisan tilt, it could be trouble.
Of course, if California or several blue/swing states somehow turned reliably red, the same (yet opposite) effect could happen. I'm not sure of the breakdown of California's political leanings by area, but it would probably take a cataclysmic earthquake to kill off enough people to diminish California's population enough to not be as dominant, even then it would still be one of the largest populations and still have a lot of electoral votes.
Now, either way, if 1 party rule were ever in effect for more than a few years, it could lead to political warfare in Congress, given how quick the dominant party would be to steamroll the minority party, especially if the minority party were to return to power, or even turn the tables. If you think it's bad now, it could be worse.

 

Posted Feb 15, '14 at 10:20pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,648 posts

Knight

Okay, so what are we supposed to discuss? whether we feel a one party system is a valid alternative? America's current political landscape? Its a large field so I would appreciate a narrowing of scope.

 

Posted Feb 15, '14 at 10:31pm

Fiends

Fiends

114 posts

Okay, so what are we supposed to discuss? whether we feel a one party system is a valid alternative? America's current political landscape? Its a large field so I would appreciate a narrowing of scope.


Thoughts, comments, whether it should become a 3rd party system or not., possible future civil war; i'd go with the 1st.
 

Posted Feb 16, '14 at 6:29am

MacII

MacII

1,369 posts

whether it should become a 3rd party system or not


How's about a duly democratic multi-party system?

About time, you'd think, after some um two centuries of what you have.
 

Posted Feb 16, '14 at 1:51pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

How about we forget the whole idea of parties and just vote on what an individual says their views are? Oh wait. That would mean we'd actually have to educate ourselves on who we're voting for instead of just following the colored map for 2 year olds.

 

Posted Feb 16, '14 at 3:07pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,322 posts

how do you distribute the seats without party's? can everyone bring their own?
can everybody just join in like that and earn good money by just sitting there pretending to be a politician?

 

Posted Feb 17, '14 at 1:35am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

That would mean we'd actually have to educate ourselves on who we're voting for instead of just following the colored map for 2 year olds.


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
 

Posted Feb 17, '14 at 10:34am

09philj

09philj

2,588 posts

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill


Agreed. People are, on the whole, stupid and gullible.

At least in the U.S. the main parties are largely true to their principles and are an attractive choice if you like the ideas behind the party. In the U.K. however, none of the main parties look any good anymore.

Option 1. The Conservatives. A bunch of privately educated upper class idiots with no connection to working class people, who include my least favourite politician of all time, Michael Gove.

Option 2. The Labour Party. Meant to be the party of the working class, but aren't much anymore, and are led by a man who looks like Beaker from the Muppets. Consequently, they can't be taken seriously.

Option 3. Other parties. No other party is popular enough to get a majority and/or are weird, especially UKIP.
 

Posted Feb 18, '14 at 6:55am

partydevil

partydevil

5,322 posts

At least in the U.S. the main parties are largely true to their principles and are an attractive choice if you like the ideas behind the party.

yep the parties are tight shut on their principles and dont want to give the other the opportunity to do what they want. they rather close the government for some days then to just talk and find a way out thats best for the country instead of being best for the party...

and good luck separating 350million people in just 2 groups. and then they all should be happy with what their party does...
you cant divide so many people in 2 groups and expect everyone to be happy. especially not if these partys are unwilling to change their hard grounded principles...
 

Posted Feb 19, '14 at 5:24pm

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

9,655 posts

Moderator

There are no separate parties in State, Local, and Federal congresses, only people who lap up the milk of lobbyists. Give them enough money and they could swing either way they wished. This is what we are seeing in Congress today.

 
Reply to 1 party rule in America?

You must be logged in to post a reply!