wheelrunner vs CRISP
The time for political parties is past.
wheelrunner said 04/17, 08:51 AM
Political parties where a way for a candidate to quickly convey a set of core values in an age where the technology didn't exist for voters to learn a lot about a candidate. They are a shortcut to say "I am 'this' type of person, and I believe roughly this".
In this day of cable TV and the internet it's time we put the parties aside and focused on the individual. Political parties have become a way of easily obtaining a voter base without letting them know who you are. Declare yourself for one party and you'll automatically get a lot of votes from those who always vote Republican/Democrat.
In the process of securing the approval of the party elders a candidate may be forced to conform to some of the philosophies of the party to which they do not personally agree. This leads to a conflicted candidate.
The elimination of the political parties would allow for candidates whose personal views cross what are now considered 'party lines'.
A politician fighting for what they personally believe in, rather than what they need to fight for to stay in favor with the party elders, is a more effective politician.
CRISP said 04/18, 04:44 PM
You have an interesting point Wheelrunner, infact a very compelling point. I just think that that is why we have the possibility of Independents. I howeve think that parties have a role like any other grouping. They look after the interest of thier group, although these interests shift from time to time, but remain core fundamentals of the party. For instance other party have a stance on issues of abortion, religion, gays etc. So when a candidate associates with the party, they automatically adopt those views.
Mostly, the people who get party nominations are people with a proven track record with that party and their positions are not questionable. They just need to rise above everything else and impress the membership.
The Party also helps to keep the debate fairly clean because contenders are guided by the party values. If we were to have an individuals system only we would possibly see more character assasinations and dirty campaigning which would not be controlled well because there is not structure.
I respect your thinking out of the box though on this one.
wheelrunner said 04/18, 06:47 PM
"So when a candidate associates with the party, they automatically adopt those views. "
That is the fundamental point I'm making here. The adoption of the party's views is the compromise a politician must make in order to party backing, and then we see politicians flip-flop on issues, wondering "Doesn't s/he know what s/he believes?" I think they don't anymore, because in order to get to the point where we see them in a debate, or running for a prominent office, they have, many times, gone through a process of changing their beliefs to that of the party, perhaps several times over the course of their career.
Let us have a candidate fighting passionately and unflinchingly for personal core beliefs. Let us have a candidate that crosses what are now 'party lines'. Let us have a candidate who is not morally conflicted before they even take the stage.
As for the character assassinations and dirty campaigning: Let us have a public demanding focus on the real issues they care about and doing the thought-work democracy demands, or, sadly, let them have the government they deserve.
CRISP said 04/19, 05:26 AM
The idea behind the freedom of association is so that individuals who are like-minded can group themselves and develop core values. I think that although parties have crafted their positions on core issues,their membership continues to exercise the liberty to make choices on some issues.This is why u had a lot of Dems supporting Pres Regan (Ragan Democrats) or the rumoured Obama Republicans.This is because candidates identify with the individual running on another party's ticket, but would like to hang on to their party and what it stands for.
The other issue is that parties are always at hand to do the work around the issues over the four year (while the winning candidate is running the country).Say fundraising against i.e. sterm cell research or any of their issues.
They also assist with making collective inputs in legislations before they are passed in congress. Now if we leave all these responsibilities to individuals, there is no obligation for individuals to take time off their normal lives and do all this ground work. Parties do. The sitting president who would have been elected in the way you suggest, will not have organisational support on issues and decisions.
wheelrunner said 04/22, 09:25 AM
The removal of parties does not take away "the freedom of association", it promotes a fuller knowledge of the candidate. The problem is a great many people associate with a party, not a candidate. They don't feel they need to. "I'm a Republocrat" is an easy way to seem involved without thinking.
'Party work' is good conceptually, but a poor in execution. In our current system little gets done because of 'which party is in control' and the stigma of 'crossing party lines'. Envision a legislature of independents meeting without a "them or us" mentality. Do you need to raise so much money for issues when each elected official is allowed to vote their conscience and not a crafted 'party stance'?
I think under a no-party system the President would have the support of a congress, that would more closely reflect the will of the people. Currently the President is at odds with half the legislature by default.
I'm proposing co-operation among individuals over conflict between parties.
Take away group allegiances and many of the reasons for fighting and fund raising go away. You're left with folks voting their heart, which is what was intended in the beginning.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Is this debate going to continue? I thought it was interesting..
DonkeyDude | 04/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
I think Wheelrunner is an idealist. In a normal environment where we would literally look at the candidates and not be easily lobbied by money and other opportunities that come with supporting the individual. I just think that individuals are more vulnerable in taking money from interest groups than parties are. Individuals also change positions and stances easily than parties would, precisely because those positions are agreed upon by a larger community that belongs to the organisation.
POST | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Proud: your conclusory statement that individuals would be more subject to influence is questionable. At least under Wheelrunner's idealistic approach they presumably begin at their core values. The problem with parties is that you shift positions even before the race begins so that you can appeal to the party's base. There are 300 million people in this country, and probably almost as many unique sets of individual values. It is not a coincidence that we end up having to choose between 2 candidates with the exact same across-the-board "beliefs" that their respective parties espouse.
DonkeyDude | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Watch out, wheelrunner. P&L is a cheater, and may try to sabotage the voting, like (s)he did with our recent debate. Just check out our recently completed ''debate'' about being able to vote more than once. Just letting you know, be careful.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Crying foul Pit? but I must say in the spirit of fairness, I did concede in my last submission that McA gave me a solution about changing your origional vote, therefore automatically I threw the debate. But thanks for the votes anyway.
CRISP | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
I'm pulling a liberal and saying the vote was fixed. Integrity was disenfranchised. The last half of what you just said is incoherent, although it sounded like you just admitted you cheated.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/22/08
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
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
I agree whole-heartedly with wheelrunner. And this from a guy called "DonkeyDude." lol. I find that party association tends to polarize people and is not constructive. Also, in order to win the nomination of your party, you have to try to appeal to as many voters in that party's base as possible. This, unfortunately, often means that people shift their stances to appeal to a certain group. Then you have Dems vs. Reps inevitably in the general election, and you have two platforms to choose from: mid-left, or mid-right (or, increasingly, very right). I want to have a candidate who is pro-choice, for gun control, anti-war, not imperialist, who wants to better the lives of everyone in the country; but I also want him/her to be tough (but smart) on crime, strictly against illegal immigration, against pork-belly spending, and in favor of the death penalty in certain circumstances. I'd also love him/her to be agnostic or atheist for once. But you can't find a candidate with all of these positions/beliefs with a chance in hell because of the barriers to entry against the two major parties. It sucks.
DonkeyDude | 04/18/08
Report Offensive Comment