Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

1 party rule in America?

Posted Feb 19, '14 at 6:17pm

minecraftsniper

minecraftsniper

613 posts

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

 

Posted Feb 19, '14 at 8:10pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

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."
 

Posted Feb 19, '14 at 8:36pm

minecraftsniper

minecraftsniper

613 posts

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

 

Posted Feb 19, '14 at 8:39pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

2,099 posts

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.
 

Posted Feb 20, '14 at 11:25am

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 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.


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.
 

Posted Feb 20, '14 at 10:37pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,322 posts

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.
 

Posted Feb 21, '14 at 5:29pm

Fiends

Fiends

114 posts

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.


They can be partisan, just not openly partisan. As long as they can write something other than "It's the other party so **** em" and come up with some acrobatic logic, then there's not much you can do about it.

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.


Hard to drum up resources when almost no one knows who you are.

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


Large enough majority in the senate can neutralize the problem of the opposition getting in the way. The House has a better chance..
 

Posted Feb 22, '14 at 3:55pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

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


This would have nothing to do with decisions, it would have to do with elections. If one party received 10% of the vote, then 10% of Congress will be occupied by such group. It's that simple.

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.


You would have to get enough votes. Voters choice!

They can be partisan, just not openly partisan. As long as they can write something other than "It's the other party so **** em" and come up with some acrobatic logic, then there's not much you can do about it.


Because litigation, the first amendment and checks and balances are null and void, right? We have these to fight against that.

Hard to drum up resources when almost no one knows who you are.


That only helps my point... Joining one of the NCs gets your issues noticed and makes you more popular... e.g. The NRA.

Large enough majority in the senate can neutralize the problem of the opposition getting in the way. The House has a better chance..


They are bicameral, meaning separate but working on a common thing. Another example of checks and balances.
 
Reply to 1 party rule in America?

You must be logged in to post a reply!