ForumsWEPR1 party rule in America?

17 1910
Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
595

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.

  • 17 Replies
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

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.

Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
595

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.
MacII
offline
MacII
1,348 posts
1,395

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.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

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.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

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?

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

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
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

"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.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

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...
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,562 posts
4,140

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.

minecraftsniper
offline
minecraftsniper
706 posts
8,350

Well America is a continent so in this thread its like "affecting" all countries if its a problem of US you should named it like that. just wondering

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

Well America is a continent


No. North America and South America are continents. Together they are referred to as the Americas. America, singular, unambiguously refers to the United States, whose nationality is "American" not "USAian."
minecraftsniper
offline
minecraftsniper
706 posts
8,350

Well but it sounds like US are like reffering to the whole continent america is a continent divided in 3 north central and south america so it should be called 1 party rule in north america or in US . no offense its just like i think

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,817 posts
18,265

Well but it sounds like US are like reffering to the whole continent america is a continent divided in 3 north central and south america so it should be called 1 party rule in north america or in US . no offense its just like i think


Yes. America is correctly applied to the continents (technically still two), not the nation.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

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.


The parties are set up in a way similar to checks and balances within the American government. When one party wins an election, the other sits back and watches for mistakes. When mistakes are made, scrutinizes are made. This is evident with the ObamaCare website, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, and many other issues. Likewise, when the Republicans are in power, the Democrats have their turn. We saw that with Bush's War on Terrorism that ended up being the War on Money. This, along with the gift of Super PACs, is why red states don't typically turn blue instantly and vice versa. Partisanship is not necessarily a bad thing.

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.


Checks and balances generally fights against this type of thing. Judges can be impeached, and, in case you didn't know, federal judges must be nonpartisan.

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.


The Constitution was written in such a format that it cannot be changed easily. The only amendments that have been made were made to give citizens more rights (minus 18, hehe. But 21 repealed it so it's all good).

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.


Realigning elections are extremely rare. We have only had textbook one realigning election ever, and that was when Lincoln's Republicans came to power after the Civil War. You could argue that Jackson's Democrats were involved in a similar situation, but ehhhh.

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.


I cannot imagine the rules changing to allow another party to contest the Democrat's power.


Sensing some bias here. :P

As it stands, Independents are mainly comprised of interest groups who don't have a fraction of the resources that the RNC and the DNC possess. So they are left to either choose to never win or join the R/DNC in hopes of getting their issues noticed. Also, Ralph Nader has come close to getting his party noticed, but that is only when dealignment has occurred. As a Libertarian, I do feel you.

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.


I think you forgot the Senate. The Senate is there to help balance things out.

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


The problem with this is that elections are based off a winner-take-all-system as opposed to shared representations. I am personally for the latter more so than the former, and elitism is a far worse option than pluralism.

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.


The problem with eliminating political parties is that most Americans feed off of partisanship (which I think you were trying to imply). Not every American has the time to research political candidates, and they're still going to vote either way.

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?


...You use pluralism and shared representations.

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.


We actually saw this during the Clinton era. Soft money was leading to an erroneous amount of cash politics. It's been banned since then, but independent expenditures and dark money are slowly making a rise. In my opinion litigation is a far fairer tactic.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

You use pluralism

oh boy, oh boy, the government will take 10 times longer to decide then they already do. xD

and shared representations.

who says that my representator actually representate me? and not his own goals over my back? who choosed these respresentators? i want to be there myself... i'll bring my own chair... just add me to the pay-list.
Showing 1-15 of 17