Why do we have political parties? (1 Viewer)

[KCitons]

Democrat, Republican, I'm registered neither. What is the reason for keeping them around.? Does it come down to $$$$?

 

[Christo]

Humans are by nature tribal.

 

[Parrothead]

so most voters know who to vote for

 

[larch]

so most voters know who to vote for

[/thread]

 

[jon_mx]

Would it be better if we had 1,000 candidates to choose from and the winner may end up with 10%.

 

[KCitons]

Would it be better if we had 1,000 candidates to choose from and the winner may end up with 10%.

The Republican primary is already looking like a March Madness bracket.

 

[jon_mx]

Would it be better if we had 1,000 candidates to choose from and the winner may end up with 10%.

The Republican primary is already looking like a March Madness bracket.

Yeah, but is that how you want the general election to go? Our Electoral College pretty much requires that you only have a few candidates, otherwise the election will go to the House.

 

[joffer]

So Todd Andrews and Bill O'Reilly can be Independents

 

[KCitons]

Would it be better if we had 1,000 candidates to choose from and the winner may end up with 10%.

The Republican primary is already looking like a March Madness bracket.

Yeah, but is that how you want the general election to go? Our Electoral College pretty much requires that you only have a few candidates, otherwise the election will go to the House.

Then you're saying the more political parties the better? According to google, there are almost 40 political parties. But only two that actually matter.

 

[Jack White]

Political parties in 5 Easy Steps:

1. Establish two major parties

2. Divide and conquer

3. Disagree in public but agree on all the big stuff in private

4. Rinse

5. Repeat

Any questions?

 

[Slapdash]

To create the illusion of choice.

 

[Cjw_55106]

How else would we know who to send our money to and blindly follow?

 

[Politician Spock]

Democrat, Republican, I'm registered neither. What is the reason for keeping them around.? Does it come down to $$$$?

It doesn't come down to $$$$.

It begins with $$$$.

 

[Christo]

Political parties in 5 Easy Steps:

1. Establish two major parties

2. Divide and conquer

3. Disagree in public but agree on all the big stuff in private

4. Rinse

5. Repeat

Any questions?

Yes. WTF does this post have to do with the subject being discussed?

 

[Zigg]

I always vote for Kodos.

 

[General Tso]

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party...”

-GW. Farewell Address.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Having no parties would certainly be chaos but having only two seems pretty crazy when you really think about it. It's pretty dumb that you have to oppose gay marriage and abortion if you want better tax breaks for your small business, or that you have to support tax breaks for billionaires if you oppose abortion. Likewise, I think people end up supporting things that they may not have originally actually agreed with just because of party fever.

At the very least there should be four major parties with equal weight, with each representing a different combination of fiscal and social viewpoints.

Fiscally conservative + socially conservative

Fiscally liberal + socially liberal

Fiscally conservative + socially liberal

Fiscally liberal + socially conservative

What's really crazy though is just how divided America is on basically everything, including the big stuff. It seems like in most of the other world leading countries the candidates are generally pretty similar, with minor differences. Here, depending on a likely close vote you will get COMPLETELY opposite results. Just imagine it from the perspective of other world leaders. In two years they could be having diplomatic meetings with Bernie Sanders or with Donald Trump. I mean, could there be any two more different ways to represent America in diplomatic relations than those guys would do compared to each other? A lot of that stems from a two party system where candidates have to lean further and further towards their party's affiliation on each and every subject to get their nomination.

 

[joffer]

whats the closest we have to fiscally liberal, socially conservative? Huckabee?

 

[General Tso]

Having no parties would certainly be chaos but having only two seems pretty crazy when you really think about it. It's pretty dumb that you have to oppose gay marriage and abortion if you want better tax breaks for your small business, or that you have to support tax breaks for billionaires if you oppose abortion. Likewise, I think people end up supporting things that they may not have originally actually agreed with just because of party fever.

At the very least there should be four major parties with equal weight, with each representing a different combination of fiscal and social viewpoints.

Fiscally conservative + socially conservative

Fiscally liberal + socially liberal

Fiscally conservative + socially liberal

Fiscally liberal + socially conservative

What's really crazy though is just how divided America is on basically everything, including the big stuff. It seems like in most of the other world leading countries the candidates are generally pretty similar, with minor differences. Here, depending on a likely close vote you will get COMPLETELY opposite results. Just imagine it from the perspective of other world leaders. In two years they could be having diplomatic meetings with Bernie Sanders or with Donald Trump. I mean, could there be any two more different ways to represent America in diplomatic relations than those guys would do compared to each other? A lot of that stems from a two party system where candidates have to lean further and further towards their party's affiliation on each and every subject to get their nomination.

This is a very insightful post. America has a fairly unique political system in "winner take all", unlike European nations which are mainly based on "proportional representation". The American system leads to a binary party system whereas the European model fosters more political parties. There are pluses and minuses to both systems. Proportional Rep fosters more communication and coalition building, which in my opinion tends to bring people together more. One of the reasons America is so polarized.

 

[Todd Andrews]

So Todd Andrews and Bill O'Reilly can be Independents

Exactly. I have never been a Democrat or a Republican, and I never will be one.

 

[Jack White]

Political parties in 5 Easy Steps:

1. Establish two major parties

2. Divide and conquer

3. Disagree in public but agree on all the big stuff in private

4. Rinse

5. Repeat

Any questions?

Yes. WTF does this post have to do with the subject being discussed?

It has everything to do with "Why Do "We" Have Political Parties."

 

[spreagle]

On the fiscal side I believe the biggest difference between the parties is philosophically who gets to CONTROL the money, government or the people. Liberals want money to go to government first so they can decide how to redistribute it (this is why they say crazy things like "spending money on tax cuts for the rich" or "Elect Hillary to give the middle class a raise") conservatives want the money to be the peoples money first, just send in whatever you owe in taxes (that's why they say crazy things like "keeping more of your hard earned money). When we flip from one side to another every four years or so you don't really see your taxes change much, but the philosophic concept of control has shifted radically. If some sort of crisis requiring massive government action arrives then that's when you see the concept CONTROL manifest itself. An example is the FDR gold confiscation, liberals wanted to control the money so they confiscated pretty much all of it. Another option would have been to let all or some of the gold remain with the people then devalue the dollar, that would have given the people spending power rather than the government.

That said, things have progressed to the point where the people have pretty much lost control of most things including the money regardless of what party is in power.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Parties usually emerge or realign based on an issue (Exclusion Crisis in England, Federalists/anti-Federalist, slavery, etc). They help create long-term trust/cooperation between members, and make it easier to get things done.

Even systems set up without parties (English Parliament, US Congress) soon develop them because they're functional and reflect/encourage behavior that's hard-wired into humans (both good and bad).

 

[Godsbrother]

On the fiscal side I believe the biggest difference between the parties is philosophically who gets to CONTROL the money, government or the people. Liberals want money to go to government first so they can decide how to redistribute it (this is why they say crazy things like "spending money on tax cuts for the rich" or "Elect Hillary to give the middle class a raise") conservatives want the money to be the peoples money first, just send in whatever you owe in taxes (that's why they say crazy things like "keeping more of your hard earned money). When we flip from one side to another every four years or so you don't really see your taxes change much, but the philosophic concept of control has shifted radically. If some sort of crisis requiring massive government action arrives then that's when you see the concept CONTROL manifest itself. An example is the FDR gold confiscation, liberals wanted to control the money so they confiscated pretty much all of it. Another option would have been to let all or some of the gold remain with the people then devalue the dollar, that would have given the people spending power rather than the government.

That said, things have progressed to the point where the people have pretty much lost control of most things including the money regardless of what party is in power.

Maybe but Republican politicians want your money just as much as the Democrats. The only difference is what they spend it on.

 

[The Commish]

To create the illusion of choice.

This

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is a very insightful post. America has a fairly unique political system in "winner take all", unlike European nations which are mainly based on "proportional representation". The American system leads to a binary party system whereas the European model fosters more political parties. There are pluses and minuses to both systems. Proportional Rep fosters more communication and coalition building, which in my opinion tends to bring people together more. One of the reasons America is so polarized.

A major advantage of winner-take-all systems, like ours, is that they provide a really strong incentive for parties to seek out the middle. That's the reason why the Republican and Democratic parties are so similar and why there aren't any particularly powerful communist, nationalist, racist, etc. parties here like you see in many parts of Europe. I see that as a good thing in the sense that it provides quite a bit of stability. Of course you might see it as being a disadvantage if you're one of the people who feels left out. Personally, I'd rather live with the fact that my Libertarian vote is really just a protest vote and if that's the price I have to pay for living in a country that doesn't have a National Front party, so be it.

 

[Kal El]

It's all about power and control. Neither major party actually cares about the people, they're interested in gaining the most power. In all honesty, we'd be better off without them.

 

[roadkill1292]

This is a very insightful post. America has a fairly unique political system in "winner take all", unlike European nations which are mainly based on "proportional representation". The American system leads to a binary party system whereas the European model fosters more political parties. There are pluses and minuses to both systems. Proportional Rep fosters more communication and coalition building, which in my opinion tends to bring people together more. One of the reasons America is so polarized.

A major advantage of winner-take-all systems, like ours, is that they provide a really strong incentive for parties to seek out the middle. That's the reason why the Republican and Democratic parties are so similar and why there aren't any particularly powerful communist, nationalist, racist, etc. parties here like you see in many parts of Europe. I see that as a good thing in the sense that it provides quite a bit of stability. Of course you might see it as being a disadvantage if you're one of the people who feels left out. Personally, I'd rather live with the fact that my Libertarian vote is really just a protest vote and if that's the price I have to pay for living in a country that doesn't have a National Front party, so be it.

That's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint but I don't share it. I think having some representation from the crackpot parties is a fair price to pay for having a wider range of realistic choices that are more responsive to the electorate.

 

[lod01]

Humans are by nature tribal.

...and lemmings unable to think for themselves. Political parties tell them who they are to vote for and like good little lemmings, they march to the voting booth and put a check mark next to the name that their party has chosen for them. Your diehard lemmings will never cross party lines and vote for the other party even if that candidate told them they would get all kinds of benefits from it. They would never believe it because they are brainwashed.

 

[Keith R]

Political parties in 5 Easy Steps:

1. Establish two major parties

2. Divide and conquer

3. Disagree in public but agree on all the big stuff in private

4. Rinse

5. Repeat

Any questions?

Sad but true

 

[Politician Spock]

This is a very insightful post. America has a fairly unique political system in "winner take all", unlike European nations which are mainly based on "proportional representation". The American system leads to a binary party system whereas the European model fosters more political parties. There are pluses and minuses to both systems. Proportional Rep fosters more communication and coalition building, which in my opinion tends to bring people together more. One of the reasons America is so polarized.

A major advantage of winner-take-all systems, like ours, is that they provide a really strong incentive for parties to seek out the middle. That's the reason why the Republican and Democratic parties are so similar and why there aren't any particularly powerful communist, nationalist, racist, etc. parties here like you see in many parts of Europe. I see that as a good thing in the sense that it provides quite a bit of stability. Of course you might see it as being a disadvantage if you're one of the people who feels left out. Personally, I'd rather live with the fact that my Libertarian vote is really just a protest vote and if that's the price I have to pay for living in a country that doesn't have a National Front party, so be it.

While that's all well and good, it's an execution of the system that the system was not designed to execute. With the two party system, only two mindsets are represented in our government that was designed to represent many different mindsets. And given the two mindsets are controlled by the rich, it has essentially transformed our democratic republic into a binary plutocracy, and pretty much every economic issue we have and are suffering from can be explained by that binary plutocracy.

 

[Joe Summer]

How did the Whig party pull it off?

 

[Keith R]

It'll never happen but if we could start today with a new electoral process, it would make so much sense to abolish parties altogether. Abolish the "traveling primary" as well - the need for primaries to be staggered is no longer present with the technological progresses made since the 18th century. What you do is simple;

All candidates in all elections run in an open primary, say the first Tuesday in May. In each race, from President of the United States to Sheriff of Cobb County Georgia, if one candidate gets 50% + 1 vote, that person wins the election outright. In all races that do not get an outright winner in May, have a runoff election between the top two vote getters, with six months for voters to acquaint themselves with the head-to-head choice. Candidates can still call themselves "socially liberal, fiscally moderate" or whatever without having to formally be a Demorcat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.

But like I said, it'll never happen.

 

[Christo]

It'll never happen but if we could start today with a new electoral process, it would make so much sense to abolish parties altogether. Abolish the "traveling primary" as well - the need for primaries to be staggered is no longer present with the technological progresses made since the 18th century. What you do is simple;

All candidates in all elections run in an open primary, say the first Tuesday in May. In each race, from President of the United States to Sheriff of Cobb County Georgia, if one candidate gets 50% + 1 vote, that person wins the election outright. In all races that do not get an outright winner in May, have a runoff election between the top two vote getters, with six months for voters to acquaint themselves with the head-to-head choice. Candidates can still call themselves "socially liberal, fiscally moderate" or whatever without having to formally be a Demorcat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.

But like I said, it'll never happen.

How do you plan on having the candidates introduce themselves to the public?

 

[Kal El]

Political parties in 5 Easy Steps:

1. Establish two major parties

2. Divide and conquer

3. Disagree in public but agree on all the big stuff in private

4. Rinse

5. Repeat

Any questions?

Sad but true

Step 6: Consolidate power at higher levels to force the masses to rely on you, thus ensuring your power remains stable for longer periods.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If you abolished parties and started over without them you'd have them again the first time there was a nationwide controversy or crisis. They're ubiquitous because they're useful.

 

[Keith R]

It'll never happen but if we could start today with a new electoral process, it would make so much sense to abolish parties altogether. Abolish the "traveling primary" as well - the need for primaries to be staggered is no longer present with the technological progresses made since the 18th century. What you do is simple;

All candidates in all elections run in an open primary, say the first Tuesday in May. In each race, from President of the United States to Sheriff of Cobb County Georgia, if one candidate gets 50% + 1 vote, that person wins the election outright. In all races that do not get an outright winner in May, have a runoff election between the top two vote getters, with six months for voters to acquaint themselves with the head-to-head choice. Candidates can still call themselves "socially liberal, fiscally moderate" or whatever without having to formally be a Demorcat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.

But like I said, it'll never happen.

How do you plan on having the candidates introduce themselves to the public?

Same way they do now, except only one set of debates rather than two segregated from each other.

 

[Shane Falco]

I always vote for Kodos.

That's the problem with all of you people. Kang is always the better option. He cares about his constituents

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Political parties in 5 Easy Steps:

1. Establish two major parties

2. Divide and conquer

3. Disagree in public but agree on all the big stuff in private

4. Rinse

5. Repeat

Any questions?

No, this pretty much covers it.

 

[Christo]

It'll never happen but if we could start today with a new electoral process, it would make so much sense to abolish parties altogether. Abolish the "traveling primary" as well - the need for primaries to be staggered is no longer present with the technological progresses made since the 18th century. What you do is simple;

All candidates in all elections run in an open primary, say the first Tuesday in May. In each race, from President of the United States to Sheriff of Cobb County Georgia, if one candidate gets 50% + 1 vote, that person wins the election outright. In all races that do not get an outright winner in May, have a runoff election between the top two vote getters, with six months for voters to acquaint themselves with the head-to-head choice. Candidates can still call themselves "socially liberal, fiscally moderate" or whatever without having to formally be a Demorcat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.

But like I said, it'll never happen.

How do you plan on having the candidates introduce themselves to the public?

Same way they do now, except only one set of debates rather than two segregated from each other.

 

[Christo]

Political parties in 5 Easy Steps:

1. Establish two major parties

2. Divide and conquer

3. Disagree in public but agree on all the big stuff in private

4. Rinse

5. Repeat

Any questions?

No, this pretty much covers it.

 

[sbonomo]

How else would most the rubes in this country blindly follow some idiot regardless of their past record and ability to effectuate an actual plan? Duh....

 

[Bucky86]

Because who doesn't like a good party?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Because who doesn't like a good party?

The key word here is "good".

 

[dparker713]

It'll never happen but if we could start today with a new electoral process, it would make so much sense to abolish parties altogether. Abolish the "traveling primary" as well - the need for primaries to be staggered is no longer present with the technological progresses made since the 18th century. What you do is simple;

All candidates in all elections run in an open primary, say the first Tuesday in May. In each race, from President of the United States to Sheriff of Cobb County Georgia, if one candidate gets 50% + 1 vote, that person wins the election outright. In all races that do not get an outright winner in May, have a runoff election between the top two vote getters, with six months for voters to acquaint themselves with the head-to-head choice. Candidates can still call themselves "socially liberal, fiscally moderate" or whatever without having to formally be a Demorcat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.

But like I said, it'll never happen.

How do you plan on having the candidates introduce themselves to the public?

Candidates don't introduce themselves to the public. They introduce themselves to crackpots in Iowa and Vermont plus the press.

 

[Ilov80s]

What's really crazy though is just how divided America is on basically everything, including the big stuff. It seems like in most of the other world leading countries the candidates are generally pretty similar, with minor differences. Here, depending on a likely close vote you will get COMPLETELY opposite results. Just imagine it from the perspective of other world leaders. In two years they could be having diplomatic meetings with Bernie Sanders or with Donald Trump. I mean, could there be any two more different ways to represent America in diplomatic relations than those guys would do compared to each other? A lot of that stems from a two party system where candidates have to lean further and further towards their party's affiliation on each and every subject to get their nomination.

I'm not sure I really agree with this. The Scottish Nationalist Party has the main objective of pulling Scotland out of Great Britain. They have 56 seats in the House of Commons. That would be like if we 8 Senators that were successfully elected on the main issue of seceding their States from the Union. There is a lot more variety in Euro politics than in American. Amongst the parties themselves, they are widely varying factions. The Cobservative party has free market groups all the way to a "green" faction, people that want to leave the EU and people that want to stay in the EU and even royalists still.

 

[roadkill1292]

What's really crazy though is just how divided America is on basically everything, including the big stuff. It seems like in most of the other world leading countries the candidates are generally pretty similar, with minor differences. Here, depending on a likely close vote you will get COMPLETELY opposite results. Just imagine it from the perspective of other world leaders. In two years they could be having diplomatic meetings with Bernie Sanders or with Donald Trump. I mean, could there be any two more different ways to represent America in diplomatic relations than those guys would do compared to each other? A lot of that stems from a two party system where candidates have to lean further and further towards their party's affiliation on each and every subject to get their nomination.

I'm not sure I really agree with this. The Scottish Nationalist Party has the main objective of pulling Scotland out of Great Britain. They have 56 seats in the House of Commons. That would be like if we 8 Senators that were successfully elected on the main issue of seceding their States from the Union. There is a lot more variety in Euro politics than in American. Amongst the parties themselves, they are widely varying factions. The Cobservative party has free market groups all the way to a "green" faction, people that want to leave the EU and people that want to stay in the EU and even royalists still.

Until they figure out to swing other parties to their way of thinking, SNP has to spend the interim time actually governing, if they're part of the majority coalition, or functioning as part of the loyal opposition. Besides, is Scottish independence all that radical an idea?

 

[Ilov80s]

What's really crazy though is just how divided America is on basically everything, including the big stuff. It seems like in most of the other world leading countries the candidates are generally pretty similar, with minor differences. Here, depending on a likely close vote you will get COMPLETELY opposite results. Just imagine it from the perspective of other world leaders. In two years they could be having diplomatic meetings with Bernie Sanders or with Donald Trump. I mean, could there be any two more different ways to represent America in diplomatic relations than those guys would do compared to each other? A lot of that stems from a two party system where candidates have to lean further and further towards their party's affiliation on each and every subject to get their nomination.

I'm not sure I really agree with this. The Scottish Nationalist Party has the main objective of pulling Scotland out of Great Britain. They have 56 seats in the House of Commons. That would be like if we 8 Senators that were successfully elected on the main issue of seceding their States from the Union. There is a lot more variety in Euro politics than in American. Amongst the parties themselves, they are widely varying factions. The Cobservative party has free market groups all the way to a "green" faction, people that want to leave the EU and people that want to stay in the EU and even royalists still.

Until they figure out to swing other parties to their way of thinking, SNP has to spend the interim time actually governing, if they're part of the majority coalition, or functioning as part of the loyal opposition. Besides, is Scottish independence all that radical an idea?

My only point was that the parties in Europe don't mostly agree on big issues.