So, this election cycle has been interesting because we are even more seeing the divides within parties on certain issues. I was in a conversation elsewhere and it was brought up that political parties here aren't like parties in other developed nations. Our parties are more like the coalitions of parties we see in other countries. Lots of people with different ideologies in groups that are perceived as right or left of the line. What this creates is two behemoths that don't really represent either ideology, thus explaining the roughly 40% "independent" affiliation in this country.
So, do you think we, the people, should encourage a splitting of these parties into more? Do you think 2 is fine? Do you want to be rid of parties entirely? Do you think there should be a cap on the number of parties? I know this gets brought up here and there in other threads, but I thought one place to make your case about how you would like to see the party politics change in this country would be a good thing.
There will never be a viable third party in this country until we get major campaign finance reform. the two major parties control too much of the money and resources needed to elect a candidate.
But I believe that a third party is exactly what we need to break the gridlock in congress. It doesn't even have to be a big third party. It just needs to control enough seats to swing votes one way or the other.
I don't think there will ever be enough parties so that every person has one that 100% meshes with his beliefs. But something needs to change so that we can start fixing some of the problems facing this country. As long as "compromise" is seen as a dirty word in congress the United States will continue to suffer.
We need more parties and this year is a good example of why. Donald Trump — a moderate — is leading for the GOP nomination in front of a fiscal conservative (Kasich) and a religious conservative (Cruz). All three are very different. On the other side, you've got a moderate leading a liberal. You can make the argument that it works to a degree, as Clinton has gone further left to avoid losing her party, and Trump has gone further right to attract the vote of people who aren't batshit crazy.
But Fred is correct, you won't have other parties until you correct campaign finance. The only way that could happen is if enough voters in enough states started passing legislation on their own and pressuring state lawmakers to do the same at the federal level. I think Arkansas has taken some steps, but most state laws got even murkier after Citizens United.
I touched on this in another thread but I'm not a fan of political parties at all. It creates a political atmosphere that encourages people to blindly take sides for a variety of reasons usually from what I see though it's peer pressure. My last few years of high school I went to a school that was really conservative and it was amazing how an attempt at a political discussion would go nowhere really quick because of all the BS flying around the room. Everyone agreed though so it was all good but nobody learned anything new or brought anything real to the table. If you didn't agree it became almost a mob mentality. I'm sure it's the same in really liberal areas too.
It's also harder to hold individuals accountable for the work they do or don't do when you can simply point blame at the Democrats or the Republican as a whole for most of the issues in this country. Political parties have their own set of colors and even a mascot like a sports team would so it's no surprise to me that it feels like a sports culture at times. I'd like to see people have an affiliation with individuals rather then a club. Imo it would lead to a more educated voter which would lead to a better less divided society.
If you've ever seen The Sneetches by Dr.Seuss it illustrates really well how I think political parties influence people too much.(Not that I expect everyone to watch but it's a really good cartoon if you haven't checked it out.) Peer pressure is an incredibly powerful tool and people are always trying to find ways to confirm their opinions are right even if it means tearing down someone else in the process and hearing what they only want to hear. That's why there isn't just the news anymore there's left wing news and right wing news tailored towards your fantasy on how the world is.
(03-18-2016, 02:19 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: If you've ever seen The Sneetches by Dr.Seuss it illustrates really well how I think political parties influence people too much.(Not that I expect everyone to watch but it's a really good cartoon if you haven't checked it out.) Peer pressure is an incredibly powerful tool and people are always trying to find ways to confirm their opinions are right even if it means tearing down someone else in the process and hearing what they only want to hear. That's why there isn't just the news anymore there's left wing news and right wing news tailored towards your fantasy on how the world is.
I am a big fan of Bertrand Russell. He is one of the greatest minds of the last century. I was struggling to remember the name of a satirical short story he wrote about how ridiculous political party affiliation can become.
But Seuss's story about the Sneetches works just as well and more people are likely to read it.
I didnt like i had to get a party affiliated ballot the other day. And then out of the 20 things i had to vote for only 4 of them had more than one option.
(03-18-2016, 03:46 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Zero parties, as I agree with a lot of what CTB said.
Make people run on their own merit and everyone receive the same amount of campaign funds.
I like the principle, but I don't think it's realistic unless we're talking about Nauru or somewhere. In any country with more than a million people, you can't have an unfiltered process or you have the realistic possibility of tens of thousands of candidates. Possibly hundreds of thousands. People already don't spend enough time learning what a candidate stands for, how are they going to do that when it's one out of 59,393?
(03-18-2016, 03:57 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Before we start asking for a 3rd party, let's just work on getting a 2nd party....
People may think they are being clever when they say this, but it is really pretty stupid.
The two main parties disagree on abortion rights, minimum wage, tax cuts, social spending, health care. the environment, immigration, foreign policy, and many other major issues. They spend Billions of dollars fighting against each other because of these major differences.
You have to be politically ******** to think they are the same.
(03-18-2016, 01:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There will never be a viable third party in this country until we get major campaign finance reform. the two major parties control too much of the money and resources needed to elect a candidate.
I agree, here. We definitely need to look at an overhaul of how the funding works for our political process.
(03-18-2016, 01:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But I believe that a third party is exactly what we need to break the gridlock in congress. It doesn't even have to be a big third party. It just needs to control enough seats to swing votes one way or the other.
I don't think there will ever be enough parties so that every person has one that 100% meshes with his beliefs. But something needs to change so that we can start fixing some of the problems facing this country. As long as "compromise" is seen as a dirty word in congress the United States will continue to suffer.
No, there will never be enough to get it where everyone has someone they fully get behind, but it would still be a far cry better than what we have now if there was just one more party. I think a great number would be 5 major parties. Right, left, center-right, center-left, and centrist.
Forgive my generic response, but it seems like people say the same thing every election cycle:
"I wish we had more options than these two stupid candidates"
AND
"Voting for a 3rd party is a waste of a vote"
People just don't seem to "get it" and they regurgitate the same tired cliches. When I say I'm voting for a 3rd party they say "But he can't win because no one will vote for him" and if I say "Well, maybe I won't vote" they say "But what if EVERYONE didn't vote?" Wait, if I vote for the guy I like the best it's stupid because NO ONE will do what I do, but if I DON'T vote at all then EVERYONE will do what I do? Huh?
I just don't get people's perception of our system, biased and fixed as it may be. Sometimes I feel like D or R is like asking Coke or Pepsi when the real answer to that question should be "Hey, why is our society so hooked on drinking liquid candy, anyways? Can I vote for water?"
(03-19-2016, 05:46 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Going to be really interesting to see what happens when we try to screw retirees to pay for college tuition. That will be real class warfare.
Is that going to be before or after they take everyone's guns and force us to worship Allah?
(03-19-2016, 10:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: Vs trying to screw retirees to line the pockets of CEO's and wall street investors?
I think JustWin is just falling for more rhetoric from the echo chamber.
He is always parroting their speaking points like labeling the elite group of our population that control the overwhelming majority of stocks "retirees" and "mom and pop".
The real irony is that he was just whining about the media being "state sponsored propaganda", and he falls for more of it than anyone else.
(03-18-2016, 05:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: People may think they are being clever when they say this, but it is really pretty stupid.
The two main parties disagree on abortion rights, minimum wage, tax cuts, social spending, health care. the environment, immigration, foreign policy, and many other major issues. They spend Billions of dollars fighting against each other because of these major differences.
You have to be politically ******** to think they are the same.
What has changed about abortion, minimum wage, immigration or foreign policy between Bush and Obama? Nothing, unless it came from a court ruling which has nothing to do with parties. No meaningful improvements have been mode to the tax system under either party. The amount taxed and spent may change, but debt is racking up either way. The Fed has the all meaningful control over the economy and literally all the control of the money supply. No candidate has been serious about changing any of that. Only a very small handful have even suggested auditing the Fed; most strongly oppose it.
Foreign policy? Because the dozen or so countries getting droned (if not bombed or invaded outright) see the glaring difference between a Bush bomb and an Obama bomb. Obama has deported more illegals than Bush. Immigration policy will remain basically the same as it has for decades under any of the current candidate - minus Trump. And most of his promises still aren't going to happen anyways, whether it's because he backs off or the courts don't allow him to do it.
Parties and candidates don't take campaign donations and spend billions because they are concerned about being different. They do it because they all just want to see themselves in power.
If "Neocon Corporatist" was an official party, they'd be endorsing 95% of politicians in America since the 60's.
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
Obama has deported more illegals than Bush. Immigration policy will remain basically the same as it has for decades under any of the current candidate - minus Trump. And most of his promises still aren't going to happen anyways, whether it's because he backs off or the courts don't allow him to do it. 