I think political parties should end

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,005
657
260
deaftourette.com
Hear me out:

People have become so entrenched in their tribalistic zeal for a particular Party that policy is a second, third or 99th thought.

People, politicians vote STRICTLY along party lines, without thinking about the impact of the society at large that such a vote will affect (vote in Congress or at the polls).

And when dealing with actual policy (the politicians), no matter what dissent there is, they still vote on a bill, measure, resolution along party lines. Very rarely does bipartisanship exist and when it does, it is almost never enough to effect change.

If parties no longer were a thing, people can focus on actual policy and the message each candidate brought forth and their political record thus far.

This also goes into the topic of public financing of presidential campaigns instead of a party organization raising money or the individual campaigns getting PAC or corporate money that would influence policy that doesn't benefit the populace.

I'm VERY sleepy right now so I'll leave it there... I have to get to work.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,120
15,578
665
USA
dunpachi.com
Ideally, yes. Ideally, each person would elucidate their own ideas and advocate for their own best interests. Each person would have enough time in the day to discuss with their neighbors and allow the best plans to peacefully float their way to the top.

But...

Every single person is predisposed to obey and accept what they see, from birth. This isn't an inditement, it's just the reality of the human condition. Adulthood is when you learn to break away from support-structures and instead build your own for others to benefit from.

Political parties are a symptom, not a problem in and of themselves. Having a thousand splintered parties and a thousand splintered coalitions carries its own problems.
 

diablos991

Can’t stump the diablos
Jun 15, 2013
8,443
570
525
I agree. Unfortunately people are really lazy and political parties allow people to use less effort to vote.

I think the best first step is to remove the straight ticket voting option from ballots. Next would be to remove the party affiliation from the names of candidates on the ballot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette
Nov 17, 2012
2,088
24
405
Ohio
Well I have spoken out against the "Rage of Party" I do wonder if abolishing political parties would be a positive thing. My main concern with it is that political parties do provide a support system for smaller politicians at the local level. Removing the organizing factors of political parties might make the actual process of getting into politics a lot harder as it becomes an Everyman for himself type of thing and could actually increase the influence of the powerful. Those structural concerns are my main worry, Ideologically I support thinking for your self beyond the party lines.
 
Jun 26, 2018
1,060
761
235
42
Milwaukee, WI
I'm fine with it. You can run on any platform you want and come down on any issue any which way. But at the end of the day, it's good to have a sitting party with a good amount of support. Things are no better where there are multiple parties.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,903
2,748
540
Brampton, Ontario
I unironically would be in favor of bringing back the Monarchy.

The key difference is I wish the title of King/Queen could be earned rather than inherited.
 

diablos991

Can’t stump the diablos
Jun 15, 2013
8,443
570
525
I unironically would be in favor of bringing back the Monarchy.

The key difference is I wish the title of King/Queen could be earned rather than inherited.
How does one go about earning a kingship?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
19,844
14,850
685
In theory I would agree, it’s just human nature to be tribal. From your favorite sports teams, your favorite console, your favorite music, television shows, and even your political gangs.
 

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
810
863
250
I agree that the political party system needs a lot of work. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that this is the problem and that the grass would be greener on the other sid.e.

Take away special interests, corruption, and pandering to name a few. Suddenly, the two party system is tolerable
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConnorDuffy1977

Platinumstorm

Member
Oct 19, 2011
1,031
137
505
I don't know that this would do anything. Think about the sociolects that exist for each party's members. They even pervade our gaming threads [bfv, mk11] There would still be ways to identify.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
4,116
4,315
560
Hear me out:

People have become so entrenched in their tribalistic zeal for a particular Party that policy is a second, third or 99th thought.

People, politicians vote STRICTLY along party lines, without thinking about the impact of the society at large that such a vote will affect (vote in Congress or at the polls).

And when dealing with actual policy (the politicians), no matter what dissent there is, they still vote on a bill, measure, resolution along party lines. Very rarely does bipartisanship exist and when it does, it is almost never enough to effect change.

If parties no longer were a thing, people can focus on actual policy and the message each candidate brought forth and their political record thus far.

This also goes into the topic of public financing of presidential campaigns instead of a party organization raising money or the individual campaigns getting PAC or corporate money that would influence policy that doesn't benefit the populace.

I'm VERY sleepy right now so I'll leave it there... I have to get to work.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

-George Washington’s Farewell Address
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
13,650
654
1,130
OP acts like political parties are the source of such behavior instead of merely another symptom. Humans band into tribes, it is just the way the majority of us are wired.

If you did away with organized/official parties you'd have cabals instead.

That said, having only two real parties is one of the main reasons the US is a shitshow when it comes to elected officials.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,654
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
If you abolish the parties, people will find some other way to align themselves into groups because that's the what the current system encourages (first past the post voting system, and too much money in politics).

Keep the parties, but implement ranked choice voting and public financing of elections, and I think the problems OP has with the current system would lessen somewhat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,903
2,748
540
Brampton, Ontario
Yup. Parties and politics are the symptoms, not the disease.
I'd argue it's both.

We don't vote for leaders, we vote for which corporation we want to rule over us.
Democrats and Republicans want us to think choice exists, but in reality they're both in it together to enrich themselves and keep the lower classes from questioning order.

If they truly cared about us, why do they turn a blind eye to so many national issues? Instead, they pursue what will make their wall street bankers and military contractors happy and not the average citizen.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CurryPanda

LegendOfKage

Gold Member
Mar 6, 2018
2,053
2,817
400
Hear me out:

People have become so entrenched in their tribalistic zeal for a particular Party that policy is a second, third or 99th thought.

People, politicians vote STRICTLY along party lines, without thinking about the impact of the society at large that such a vote will affect (vote in Congress or at the polls).

And when dealing with actual policy (the politicians), no matter what dissent there is, they still vote on a bill, measure, resolution along party lines. Very rarely does bipartisanship exist and when it does, it is almost never enough to effect change.


And also


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,654
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
in reality they're both in it together to enrich themselves and keep the lower classes from questioning order.

If they truly cared about us, why do they turn a blind eye to so many national issues? Instead, they pursue what will make their wall street bankers and military contractors happy and not the average citizen.
OK, but how in the seven hells do you think an earned monarchy will solve this problem?
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,622
1,836
350
Moore Park Beach
Hear me out:

People have become so entrenched in their tribalistic zeal for a particular Party that policy is a second, third or 99th thought.

People, politicians vote STRICTLY along party lines, without thinking about the impact of the society at large that such a vote will affect (vote in Congress or at the polls).

And when dealing with actual policy (the politicians), no matter what dissent there is, they still vote on a bill, measure, resolution along party lines. Very rarely does bipartisanship exist and when it does, it is almost never enough to effect change.

If parties no longer were a thing, people can focus on actual policy and the message each candidate brought forth and their political record thus far.

This also goes into the topic of public financing of presidential campaigns instead of a party organization raising money or the individual campaigns getting PAC or corporate money that would influence policy that doesn't benefit the populace.

I'm VERY sleepy right now so I'll leave it there... I have to get to work.
If you realize your party are retards, the solution is not to disband parties altogether.
The solution is to switch to another party that is not retard.
 

It's Jeff

Member
Aug 28, 2015
465
569
280
Interesting perspective, OP.

Here's what gets my panties in a bunch about political parties - at least, the two party system that we have here in the states.

Monopolistic control of any market doesn't benefit the consumer. It's garbage for health insurance and sucks much ass for cable internet providers. And we've let this happen to our political infrastructure.

Think of any issue you feel strongly about. Half of all your politicians support it, because their party demands it. The other half opposes it because their party demands it. It's easy to become disengaged as a voter. The only method to institute big change is by a large, overwhelming sweep into both houses of congress, the presidency, and a majority stake in the supreme court to avoid torpedoing passed legislation as constitutional or not. And the last time that happened, we were blessed with the half-assed ACA. We were closer to universal healthcare under Richard fucking Nixon's plan... sunk forever by Ted Kennedy because of two party jackassery who thought he could get a better deal. Great job, guys. By sticking to your system and trying to make sure each one of your teams got the credit, you gave birth to the monster we have today and exactly nobody benefited except United Healthcare, Aetna, Kaiser, and Humana. United Healthcare made almost three billion dollars in profit last year, which you make exclusively by NOT covering medical procedures. Glad these guys got top priority in our political system, thanks in part to our stellar two party system. Yes, Resetera, BOTH SIDES make permanent, harmful mistakes for political points.

There's no version of this where the best ideas are held EXCLUSIVELY by one group. Representatives should vote on ideas, regardless of the red or blue tag tattooed on the presenter. If nobody had those tags, we'd have a hell of a lot more engagement than we do now.

Alright. Done ranting.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,654
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
If you realize your party are retards, the solution is not to disband parties altogether.
The solution is to switch to another party that is not retard.
That's nice in theory, but difficult in practice. As you can see in USA politics, the third parties might as well not exist. The way the current system is organized, along with fears of the "spoiler effect" keep this status quo in place.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,903
2,748
540
Brampton, Ontario
Somehow it does not surprise me that you are in favour of a military dictatorship.
I actually looked to the American Revolution for inspiration of how a head of state is picked.
George Washington had defacto experience leading Americans in the Patriotic War and was rewarded by later being elected first President.
After the end of WW2, you also saw many Presidents who had previously served that war also later become elected.

"Dictatorship" is too harsh of a word. While I believe in some heavy handed authority, I just want a leader who truly has the nation at heart and is ultimately about making their nation as a whole stronger, and is not just in the business to make a few elite citizens rich.

Clearly both parties put corporations and military contracts above the interests of average U.S citizens.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,903
2,748
540
Brampton, Ontario
OK, but how in the seven hells do you think an earned monarchy will solve this problem?
Monarchs are like extended family. The head of the household. Again, I believe the responsibility of the head of state should be to its people, and not just corporations.

Someone who works hard for it and earns a promotion through some patriotic duty should thus be considered the role of governing over similar minded people.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,654
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
Monarchs are like extended family. The head of the household. Again, I believe the responsibility of the head of state should be to its people, and not just corporations.

Someone who works hard for it and earns a promotion through some patriotic duty should thus be considered the role of governing over similar minded people.
That's some wishful thinking.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,005
657
260
deaftourette.com
Interesting perspective, OP.

Here's what gets my panties in a bunch about political parties - at least, the two party system that we have here in the states.

Monopolistic control of any market doesn't benefit the consumer. It's garbage for health insurance and sucks much ass for cable internet providers. And we've let this happen to our political infrastructure.

Think of any issue you feel strongly about. Half of all your politicians support it, because their party demands it. The other half opposes it because their party demands it. It's easy to become disengaged as a voter. The only method to institute big change is by a large, overwhelming sweep into both houses of congress, the presidency, and a majority stake in the supreme court to avoid torpedoing passed legislation as constitutional or not. And the last time that happened, we were blessed with the half-assed ACA. We were closer to universal healthcare under Richard fucking Nixon's plan... sunk forever by Ted Kennedy because of two party jackassery who thought he could get a better deal. Great job, guys. By sticking to your system and trying to make sure each one of your teams got the credit, you gave birth to the monster we have today and exactly nobody benefited except United Healthcare, Aetna, Kaiser, and Humana. United Healthcare made almost three billion dollars in profit last year, which you make exclusively by NOT covering medical procedures. Glad these guys got top priority in our political system, thanks in part to our stellar two party system. Yes, Resetera, BOTH SIDES make permanent, harmful mistakes for political points.

There's no version of this where the best ideas are held EXCLUSIVELY by one group. Representatives should vote on ideas, regardless of the red or blue tag tattooed on the presenter. If nobody had those tags, we'd have a hell of a lot more engagement than we do now.

Alright. Done ranting.
THANK YOU!

THIS is what I was also trying to say but too many think it's "necessary"
 

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
2,970
3,386
265
Yes would be amazing if instead of shutting down your mind and voting for your standard tribal identifier we had to vote on individual people.

Wouldn’t be easy to do but IMO we would be infinitely better off
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,206
1,545
615
Basically OP wants no more political parties because they do things to actually make sure they win. Which is what these elections are, convincing people to vote for you so your team wins. That's not going to change if you demolish political parties, because the like minded groups will still grow into teams anyway and it'll still be a party based system in all but name.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,903
2,748
540
Brampton, Ontario
That's some wishful thinking.
I'll admit that current affairs has heavily ruined this idea.
Maybe go back a 100 years and it would be much more plausible.
When the idea of a national unity and a national image still existed, politics would be more about fraternity and uplifting your own citizens, rather than today's world where it's easy to just sell them off to the highest bidder.

Afterall, how are elections really won? Today's politcians aren't actually trying to win people over. In fact, statistics already show that voting blocs already exist. By manipulating this shit, democracy is just a numbers game until one side just overwhelming dominates everything, like we currently see in South Africa.
 
Last edited:

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,531
272
690
I unironically would be in favor of bringing back the Monarchy.

The key difference is I wish the title of King/Queen could be earned rather than inherited.
Singleton Absolute Strong Government is rather antithetical to the basic idea of what America is supposed to represent, but it is theoretically the most efficient* form of government there is.

*Depending how you would define efficient.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,903
2,748
540
Brampton, Ontario
Singleton Absolute Strong Government is rather antithetical to the basic idea of what America is supposed to represent, but it is theoretically the most efficient* form of government there is.

*Depending how you would define efficient.
The USA is a Constitutional Republic. I don't think Monarchy actually contradicts the idea of America, since it was the Patriots fighting for representation in government, which the British DID NOT allow.
But if America had a King who was obviously born or put in place by other Americans (and is supported by a constitutional amendment), then what is the problem?
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,120
15,578
665
USA
dunpachi.com
The USA is a Constitutional Republic. I don't think Monarchy actually contradicts the idea of America, since it was the Patriots fighting for representation in government, which the British DID NOT allow.
But if America had a King who was obviously born or put in place by other Americans (and is supported by a constitutional amendment), then what is the problem?
What advantage would a Monarchy give us?
 

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
999
919
225
Just get rid of all branches of government except Defense and Justice. Life would be more meaningful, prosperous, little or no corruption, less tribalism, etc. It will be sugar, spice and everything nice.
 
Nov 17, 2012
2,088
24
405
Ohio
The USA is a Constitutional Republic. I don't think Monarchy actually contradicts the idea of America, since it was the Patriots fighting for representation in government, which the British DID NOT allow.
But if America had a King who was obviously born or put in place by other Americans (and is supported by a constitutional amendment), then what is the problem?
Actually I think you idea goes beyond a monarchy(Historically they haven't actually been all to powerful) . Really the US president after the Constitution passed in many ways has greater power than the British Monarch's since the Glorious Revolution and the Hanoverian succession (Such as the Veto power which the US brought back which hadn't been used since Queen Anne )which helped arise British Parlimentary Supremacy.

One of my favorite quotes from a professor at Harvard "On one side of the Atlantic were kings without monarchy; on the other, monarchy without kings."

(It's from the book "The Royalist Revolution")
 
Last edited: