Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Don't think political parties are going away, it's a religion to too many people. What else would they do all day?

At some point, voting in general is going to have to become far easier. Like I said, a device you carry with you that can instantly verify who you are would be good.
But since people are still bitching about ID cards...
Seriously need to put a time limit of complying with that. If you can't get an ID card in the next five years, probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

I dont know enuf about wy partyz exist in every democratic nation. Iz it an unavoidabl fundamental fault?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

I never really thot much about how congress & senate worked, but I had the impression that each reprezentativ coud do all sorts uv stuf on hiz own or team up with otherz to do thingz.

All it seemz they can do iz vote, and with the partyz having so much power, they rarely go agenst them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
What is DRI? I know those initials as Desert Research Institute, but not what they are in non-geek parlance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:Without an obvious structure, everybody is a minority of one, everybody goes in different direction, at least until they form into teams.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, we could get rid of political parties if we had direct democracy. Yanno, vote on the issues directly.

---

Quote:

---

The best suggestion I ever read was having a checkbox on your tax form where you could designate how much money you wanted to go to each program; i.e education. environment, war. Heck, if you could get direct control of your tax expenditures that way it might even make paying taxes popular. Or at least not as painful!

---

Quote:

---

Or we could have a multiplicity of parties, and the parties would have to form coalitions and compromise in order to get anything done.

---

Quote:

---

In any case, both the Dems and Repubs conspire to keep the choice between themselves. The Commission on Presidential Debates isn't some hoary ancient objective referee but controlled by the RNC and DNC to limit debates to candidates who poll more than 15% ... an unrealistic threshold which limits exposure to third-party Presidential candidates. This limit was put in (by both parties) after Ross Perot got a significant portion of the vote.

---

Quote:

---

So another option, and one which I like a whole lot, iz to REQUIRE free time for political advertising from broadcast networks which have an FCC license....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:Without an obvious structure, everybody is a minority of one, everybody goes in different direction, at least until they form into teams.

---

Thats the way it shoud be.

The way it iz now, only 1 state gets full reprezentation in the Senate - Kansas. Even that iz being jenerous kuz McConnellz main loyalty iz to hiz party.

If each congressman and senator cant ALWAYZ do wut they think iz rite for their voterz and the nation, the system iz broken. The agrigated will uv the peepl duznt move us in the direction we want.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oh! JO - I completely forgot to add - my hat's off to you for taking a run at taking a run!

KUDOS

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know that (some) people believe that the internet would flatten the information hierarchy, but all it seems to have done was engender millions of hours of cat-videos and endless pictures of peoples' latest meal/ vacation/ shopping spree.

---

Quote:

---

So what would you say was your biggest hurdle to overcome in getting votes, and how would you overcome it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
So far, having fewer parties is probably the only/best possible way to give voice to "the will of the people" without it devolving into a chaos of voices.

---

Quote:

---

Imagine 200 candidates for president. It would take 2 years just to whittle it down and maybe more to understand what each candidate stands for.

---

Quote:

---

You can make a great argument for partys having too much power, but that just leads to change. Or Trump breaking his party with a lying stone mallet. Hmmmm...

---

Quote:

---

Plus, if you got rid of official parties it would just mean there would be unofficial parties working in the background without even less openness. That way lies even more corruption imho.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
In general, I think a theoretical flaw to even direct democracy is 'the tyranny of the majority'. What's to keep 50.01% of the population from voting to make 49.99% of the population their permanent slaves? Another problem is that even if everyone is in agreement, the plan might not be wise. For example, 100% of the people might agree to strip the country bare and live like kings for 20 years, and to hell with the future ... and the next generations.

---

Quote:

---

So democracy per se, even direct democracy with people in total control, doesn't by itself guarantee a result we might find preferable. There needs to be democracy + other things. Democracy + protection from the majority. Democracy + a sense of conservatorship. Democracy + an ability to look at a larger national interest.

---

Quote:

---

I find parliamentary systems to be more accountable...

That's not to say that things always work out well in parliamentary systems. For example, despite 67% opposition to the Iraq War...

---

Quote:

---

And then, there's the problem of the media in bed with either the formal elected government or the (unelected) bureaucratic power structure, telling us what the government wants us to hear, censoring what it wants hidden. And there's the problem of the internet, also being censored by (unelected) corporate gatekeepers. And the echo-chamber problem, where people repeatedly go the the sources that support their viewpoints.

---

Quote:

---

The problem of the vested media controlling the 'narrative' and denying us the information we need to make good decisions is, I feel, a global problem not limited to 'the west', or to democracies. But the way it seems to be running even in democracies, you'd almost think that even the democracies don't want us to have a say in what they're doing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
If I understand your proposal correctly, you want to keep representative government, but we vote on them 'American Idol' style - as individuals with ideas, rather than as party members.

---

Quote:

---

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. - John Adams

---

Quote:

---

The alternate domination of one faction [party] over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.- George Washington

---

Quote:

---

Washington, a thin-skinned chief executive, only decided to stay on for a second term to prevent his lieutenants [Jefferson and Hamilton] from, as he feared, splitting the country into two parties. To him, political parties spelled disunion. Eventually, Jefferson and Hamilton both resigned from Washington’s Cabinet to lead the two parties’ attacks on each other, using anonymous surrogates to write vitriolic columns for their thrice-weekly party newspapers.

To suppress the challenge of a second party, Washington’s successor, Federalist John Adams, signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, making it a federal crime to criticize the president or his administration’s policies.

Supreme Court justices became circuit-riding inquisitors, trying, fining and imprisoning some 25 editors and printers who subscribed to the Jeffersonian party line.

Religious groups blessed their favorite candidates and condemned opponents. In the 1804 campaign, the Congregational clergy of New England ganged up on candidate Jefferson in sermons reprinted in Federalist newspapers, branding him an atheist at a time when four out of five American newspapers were Federalist-owned.

In his turn, when Jefferson became president he ... he fired half of all federal officeholders, the top half. He kept Federalists only in low-level clerical, postal and customs service jobs. Jefferson effectively deprived the Federalists of any chance of rebuilding a power base by excluding them not only from the federal payroll but from political and administrative experience. The Federalists never won another election. Their party died.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

I don't know how it's possible to enforce that, except through empathic mind-probe. Which means - not at all! If you intend to do something to - say, benefit your party - and party benefit is illegal, well you just use a different set of words to create the same result.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So how can we break this "brand name" thinking and the monetary backing that goes with it?

---

Quote:

---

Maybe simply prohibit candidates from having a "D" or an "R" or ANYthing that represents "political party" after their name? In other words, make EVERY race non-partisan. Yanno, a little like blind-tasting wines: take off the label.

---

Quote:

---

The political parties could still exist, they could have platforms/ advocate for a series of policies, and they could still back candidates with money, they could even endorse them in party fliers, but there wouldn't be any "partisan" primaries or "official" party candidates; EVERY primary would be an open primary and the primary would simply be to whittle down to the top 10 (5?) candidates? As a voter, you couldn't register under any party, either.

---

Quote:

---

Part uv the brand from the voter'z perspectiv iz a quik way to pik candidates that will be in favor uv the polisyz she likes and agenst the party that haz polisyz she iz agenst. Duznt seem to be an inherently bad thing.

---

Quote:

---

Voterz woud just go by wich candidates their favored party iz backing. I think trying to reduse the partyz to a Good Housekeeping Seal uv Approval

---

Quote:

---

woudnt work too well. There are zillionz uv social organizationz offering up their endorsements, even wen it spesifically verboten.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The problem, JO, is that there's no way to to force people to vote with the good of the nation in mind, over the interests of their party - especially when they "belong" to that party.

---

Quote:

---

I'm very happy - she's a quality human from everything I can see.

---

Quote:

---

My friend the Communist, hold meetings in his office. I can't afford his gas, so I'm stuck here watching TV. ~Sheryl Crow

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes, people would still identify with parties, but just think of all the things that COULDN'T happen if politicians and voters and political parties were separated:

1) There wouldn't be any party primaries. Why do we even have "primaries" anyway? Why do we have party conventions? What is all the hoopla about? It's not REALLY part of the voting process; isn't it just for the two major parties to winnow their own candidates? Can't we just skip the whole "party" business and winnow the candidates to the top 5 (10?) by general vote, and then hold a final vote (basically a runoff) in November?

2) IF the voters weren't registered with any "party" it would be IMPOSSIBLE to gerrymander on the basis of "party" because the voter rolls wouldn't indicate "party".

4) It would also be a lot more difficult to skew polling results because the pollsters wouldn't be able to select their sample based on "party"

5) Without referencing "party", the House and Senate would have to find a whole new way of choosing committee members and committee chairs. It would rob the GOP and Dem hierarchy of its ability to reward or punish party members with committees and chairs. Of course I'm sure there would still be factions in Congress, but I believe that they'd be a lot more fluid and responsive to the issues.

6) The only way that political parties could still influence either the popular vote or Congressional votes would be via contributions, logistical help, or endorsement of specific candidates, But without that "team jersey" even an officially-endorsed candidate would be less beholden to the party because (1) they would be less-identified by the public as "belonging" to a specific party and (2) the difficulty of rewarding a specific politician with committee membership in a more-dynamic Congress.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Since there is a presedence of shooting down attempts to get rid of primaries (I believe California is one of the states that have done so), I'm taking up a new tactic in the future.

I've never voted in a primary before because they record what party you vote for. I'm only going to vote in Democratic primaries in the future. This way I show up on idiots phone apps as "one of the good guys", and I will also be voting for the most incompetent Democrat on the ticket that wouldn't stand a chance. There's no laws saying you can't do that.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The most incompetent Democrat on the ticket that wouldn't stand a chance is how we got Clinton and Obama.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The most incompetent Democrat on the ticket that wouldn't stand a chance is how we got Clinton and Obama.

---

lol. I don't believe that you believe this.


However, I do believe this is how New York got Ocasio-Cortez. Good point. Maybe this isn't a good plan. Some people will vote "D" in the general, no matter who's running, no matter how bad the outcome is.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The most incompetent Democrat on the ticket that wouldn't stand a chance is how we got Clinton and Obama.

---

lol. I don't believe that you believe this.


However, I do believe this is how New York got Ocasio-Cortez. Good point. Maybe this isn't a good plan. Some people will vote "D" in the general, no matter who's running, no matter how bad the outcome is.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

If you jot down the prior candidates, you can safely write-in for every race.
I only had 2 write-ins this month.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There wouldn't be committees under the control of a specific party. There's be no such thing as a Committee Chair (of the in-power party) and the Ranking Member (of the out-of-power party). HOW they'd decide committee chairs and membership would be a whole 'nother story, but it wouldn't be automatic on the basis of party.

---

Quote:

---

There wouldn't be a House Speaker or Senate Majority leader based on party membership either. Maybe these positions would have to be filled by a vote of the whole House and the whole Senate, not just some internal dogfight within a party leadership.

---