Political parties should be abolished.
base89 said 02/29, 09:50 PM
Our current election system makes little sense to the average voters due to parties; delegates, superdelegates, creating situations where votes don't count (i.e. Florida and Michigan on the Democratic side). They dominate the political process, members of congress sometimes vote against their conscience to tow the 'party line' so they are not ousted politically. the electoral field is limited to two serious candidates only, with third party candidates never having a chance. These parties act as if they have a constitutional mandate when their is no mention of them there what so ever, Jefferson feared what the formation of political parties would do to America. I originally thought a multi-party system (i.e. Germany, Japan) would have been a better idea, but the current two will not allow that to happen. We should scrap all parties, and allow candidates to run as themselves not as a Republican or Democrat, and then we can have more of a choice for President than just two people that have been selected by a system that no longer serves the average voter. This will also make the voter choose based solely on the issues and not their party affiliation, it would be interesting, at least.
Liberty said 02/29, 11:41 PM
You talk about towing the party line... first of all there are many candidates who will vote for what they believe in whether its along party line or not... look at Ron Paul, and there are many others. Parties are formed by people who have similar ideas right! So why shouldnt there be parties? If the people dont want only 2 dominant candidates then they should support 3rd party candidates, thats our fault as American citizens! We have allowed the 2 party system to take over there are often good candidates that run 3rd party but we dont vote for them because people say they dont have a chance well thats our fault! Not the parties fault. Parties stand for the ideals that candidates hold and that is a good thing. It allows us to identify with the candidates, people barley research the candidates as it is imagine if there were no parties then the average american would have nothing to base their vote on! The idea that politicians dont want to cross voter line well thats y that person became a republican because they hold most of the same ideas. WE SHOULDNT GET RIDE OF THE 2 PARTIES, BUT WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE MORE PARTIES TO RUN!!!!
base89 said 03/01, 08:23 AM
I agree that we should get more parties in the mix, but that will not happen, the two dominant parties will not allow for any viable third party to succeed. As for Ron Paul, he was a Libertarian, but switched to Republican because he felt he would have a better chance at winning the Presidency, so he joined the system he was against just to get elected, that is the very opposite definition of voting by principle. You're right, without parties, voters who don't research would have nothing to base their vote on, good! Those voters will then have to research candidates and find out who they feel best suits them which is the basis of our system to begin with. We hear all to often someone saying that they do not research the candidates but they always just vote Democrat/Republican without any research into the candidate. Also, without parties the election season would be much shorter without primaries, there would only be one election in November to determine the Presidency. besides, why should some voters have to vote for their second (or third) choice for President since their candidate did not make it past the primary election (such as Ron Paul)? Also, there is no need for all caps.
Liberty said 03/03, 10:22 PM
WELL I FELL THERE IS A STONG NEED FOR ALL CAPS! YOU HAVE ALREADY COUNTERED YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!! YOUR POINTS MAKE NO SENSE, YOU SAID "POLITICAL PARTIES SHOULD BE ABOLISHED" WHICH IM NOT SURE IF YOU KNOW WHAT ABOLISHED MEANS BUT IT MEANS TO END, GET RID OF SO YOUR POSISTION AFTER MY FIRST ARGUMENT CHANGED TO "I AGREE WE SHOULD GET MORE PARTIES IN THE MIX" OK IS THERE REALLY EVEN A DEBATE HERE???? YOU LATER SAID WE SHOULD GET MORE PARTIES IN THE MIX BUT THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN SO IT DOESNT MATTER, WELL WERE ALSO NOT GOING TO GER RIDE OF POLITICAL PARTIES SO I GUESS THAT DOESNT MATTER EITHER!! YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE SHOULD ADD MORE PARTIES TO THE MIX SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO SINGLE HANDEDLY LOSE THIS DEBATE FOR U
base89 said 03/04, 01:56 PM
I know what abolished means, but you obviously didn't read my argument, I would prefer there to be a system that has more parties of power in our electoral system, but it is not feasable for it to happen with the stranglehold that the two major parties hold upon the current system. The only way we, at this point, can get the kind of change in our electoral system that so many Americans say they want is to abolish all parties so as to eleminate the hold the two major parties hold (do you think they will surrender their control if we asked them?). Encouraging more parties is a nice idea, but that's all it is. We already have multiple parties (Green, Libertarian, etc.) and they have no real or marginally small influence yet at times they field candidates with good ideas, but have no chance of winning. The concept of us all just up and supporting the 3rd party candidate and he beats the system that has been in place for decades is almost like a movie over reality, it is almost like a 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington' story. The fairytale seems so simple, but we have seen 3rd parties reach out to the public, why would it suddenly work this time compared to before, where's the details?
Liberty said 03/06, 04:22 PM
Wow ok well do u even remember what this debate is about? You said we should abolish parties yet your whole argument has been based around how ideal it would be if there were more parties. Ok so since that debate is over... I will adress the fact that you say we should abolish the parties. You say it would be a good idea to have more parties with power but you repeatedly mention how thats impossible as if the idea of destroying republican and democarat parties isnt. Your arguments make little since it is so unlikely that we would ever abolish parties but thats not where u went wrong in this debate because to me you still would have had an argument till u said we should have more parties thats just so crazy to me that you are asking people to vote for your side of the argument when you already said it would be better if there were more parties!! I guess i am rambling on because you didnt even put up an argument last time so well i guess i can say i totally agree with you there should be more political parties
Comments
Add Your Comment
Base, Ron Paul was actually a life-long Republican that switched to Libertarian in '88 to run for president. Following his loss, he switched back to the Republican party. Historically libertarians have aligned with or have been a dominant part of the Republican party (see Barry Goldwater). Since you admitted your premise was incorrect base, I will have to cast my vote for Liberty.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
For the record, I did not admit my premise was incorrect, I merely said that although I would like multiple parties, it will not happen, and the only way that we can get the change we desire in our electoral system, is to abolish all parties so there will be no dominant groups dictating the system as it is now.
base89 | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with base89, but the problem isn't just the two party system its the media coverage of the two party system, Americans are tricked into believing that the presidential race is between republicans and democrats, and with the way both parties have been acting the last few decades there really is no difference between the two. Making government bigger is associated with the democrats, and here Bush inflates homeland security and the TSA to nearly demonic powers. The two parties want money, and the media makes anyone who opposes this system into a fool, what chance does the American have for his inherant liberties when both sides increase the size and power of the government? Unfortuntaly, you cannot have any poltics or form of government without any party (or corporation) vying for control. Humans desire one man to rule over them because they are too lazy to think for themselves, and until the day people start using the wisdom of solomon and the teachings of Christ to help their fellow man instead of condemn him, then we will always seek a party to rule in their favor. Corruption is the biggest evil in politics and that must be addressed before we turn into a facist nation, Newscorp, TimeWarner, and the other big media companies would love for this to happen and they are going to great lengths to pay for it come to fruition. Don't believe me? Wiki the big media companies, then watch American news. Its trite and sickening, and refuses to spend more than five minutes on any real issue. The producers make the news, not the anchors.
AhavahOlam | 03/06/08
Report Offensive Comment
base89, I understand your argument and agree the two party system is flawed. The political process is often more divisive that decisive. But imagine going to the polls in Denton, TX, with there three electronic voting booths, to find a ballot with 678 candidates? How would and individual generate funds? How would one get on the ballot? Without political affiliations (parties) how many years would it take to resolve the simplest of issues in Congress? AND... you do appear to concede your argument when you agree more parties should be involved. The initial presentation of your argument was well presented, Sorry.
jesterjabs | 03/06/08
Report Offensive Comment
No worries, I had a feeling I would loose, the main reason I made the debate was to simply raise the issue, and get a real dialog started. I knew getting a majority of voters to agree on an issue like abolishing political parties was an uphill battle to begin with.
base89 | 03/08/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech
Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage
( )
Athens in Flames
A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.
(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)
Here's my view of the burdens of proof for each side. base89 has the larger burden in this case. Since he is advocating a specific policy action he has to both establish that the status quo is harmful and that the proposed change would be less harmful. Liberty has the lower burden of proof - he need only show that one of the two parts of base89's claim is false - that is, he can show either that political parties are not harmful or that the proposed change would be equally or more harmful.
PhilSandifer | 03/01/08
Report Offensive Comment