As I am sure that most of you are aware that when it comes to voting for the president, or your senator, most people don't really look at the views of a particular candidate, rather they look at the little letter in parentheses. So I want to know from the readers of this if the world would be a better place if political parties were outlawed, and everyone just ran as an independent, or if the system is fine the way it is.
It is definitely true that Democrats and Republicans often argue with each other just because they are in separate parties; this leads to them just not liking each other in general.
There are actually people working on this right now.Here is a link.
ya, i agree i think its rediculous. political parties shouldnt be "outlawed" though XD. weve ran the two party system for more then 160 years, and its worked for us this far.
Eh...it's kinda stagnated. All the parties do is tear down what the other built up during their term. You should have another party or two.
I don't get what you mean by 'should'. We don't 'limit' our number of parties. Also, I don't see that ever happening where one party 'tears down' the acts of the others. I can give you multiple times where reform from both sides has been moderated, but new ideas show from each side. Following the 1900's, Wilson's underwood tariff took the tariff to an all time low, following republicans re-vamped the tariff but never to it's previous degree. LBJ's promoting of public education with federal funds was a democratic idea. It was then later lowered down a little with Nixon and Ford, but never obliterated. The IDEA of a Tariff started with Henry Clay and Hamilton, both of whom could be represented as current republicans, following Democrat-like leaders noticed it's important, even if they supported an agrarian populace. I mean, for most of history, not just today, America has defined its politics with partisanship. Look at voting patterns post civil war until FDR, it was basically north one color and south the other. And this is just a few of the examples in history. The only place this thought of tearing down the works of the other makes sense is the history behind the US Supreme Court, but that isn't what we're really talking about.
I think the system works because although it may lead to roadblocks, if one side can take an idea to such a considerable height that its very own opposition chooses to take part in the creation of such an idea, what you have, is a bipartisan idea, which, is something many people are hoping for.
The reason people are 'mad at Washington' today is not because the system is messed up, it's most likely the people in congress, who seem to be stubbornly supporting their voters to a degree that leads to a lack of compromise.
I mean, if you just type in 'Compromise of' you'll find like 30 historical compromises in our history. This is because if the right people are up there, they'll pull through with something acceptable for all -- and that is unity.
I mean, if you just type in 'Compromise of' you'll find like 30 historical compromises in our history. This is because if the right people are up there, they'll pull through with something acceptable for all -- and that is unity.
That isn't very many compromises. Your system releis on politicians to actually care about the common man. I can list maybe three or five Prime Ministers out of fourty or so who actually did this. Mind you Canada has a system where if the ruling party doesn't have majority they HAVE to compromise or risk being kicked out.
Maybe America could adopt that? Explain how Congress works si vous plait.
The way that Congress works is like how Canadian Parliament works. The difference is how people get office. Instead of voting for parties, people vote for individual people. That causes a whole lot of problems especially in the House of Representatives because they could be split more often then not 60/40 or 55/45 by party. And because Henry Clay (The Great Compromiser), unfortunately died in the late 1800s, things don't work too well in America.
Hm that does create a problem. And yet it could result in a deadlock more often than not, correct? Wouldn't a third major party having representation break that deadlock?
Another problem I see with the American system is it is very difficult to remove the ruling party. This means the ruling party has complete control, correct? It leaves little room for compromise. It's unfortunate you cannot simply cast a vote of no confidence and force another election should the opposition be given reasonable grounds. Such a threat would allow great compromise.
If there was a third party, it would only add to the mish-mosh because that would open a possibility for a 33/33/33 split, and because for anything to get done, you have to have a majority vote, the odds of even two of the parties cooperating are slim, as they don't even do that today.
Then why not adopted a more parlimentary system? Unless they have over half the seats the ruling party could be forced into another election on a vote of no confidence should they proceed to be retarded. It helps, well...kinda, people are idiots so...yeah.
George Washington said it best in his farewell address. He warned that if we moved away from our principles and divided into political parties it would break us apart.
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
