US Politics: Are TWO Parties Enough to Represent the Complexities Found in our Nation

[Mr Skeptic]

Is the two-party dynamic adequate for dealing with the subtlies and complexiites of our national discourse and evolving needs?

 

No, a two party system is quite harmful, as they are competing against each other and don't provide much choice. With more parties, they would have to stand on their own merit rather than simply being better than the other party (or sabotaging the other party's actions to make them look bad). And whenever both parties agree on something, we get stuck with it whether we like it or not.

 

What are the plusses/minuses of two party control?

 

Better than a one party system

 

If we were to move away from a two-party system, how might we do that, and what might be the benefits/costs?

 

We could change our voting system. As it is, a side effect of our voting system is to benefit a two party system. This is because voting for a losing party wastes your vote, so that people vote for one of the two parties most likely to win. There are many ways we could change our voting system to eliminate this problem.

[DrDNA]

I've given this question some more thought and have come to a slightly different conclusion.

I agree with Pangloss to a large degree........

 

I do not believe that the number of parties is necessarily the issue/problem.

The, or at least an, important problem is, the choices that we are forced to choose from AND how the voting public chooses between those choices

 

Problem with the Available Choices:

Say I have researched and learned about different cereals.

Then I go to the grocery looking for some healthy cereal; cereal that is high in nutritional value, containing no or few unnecessary additives, plenty of fiber, etc.

But all I can find on the shelves are Lucky Charms and Fruit Loops.

Brands that happen to be low in nutritional value and fiber, with many artificial additives, but high in flavor and sugar content (they give me my sugar fix and immediate gratification).

I really want something else; something that is healthier for me and my family

But the only choice I have is between Fruit Loops and Lucky Charms.

Both of which are unacceptable in my knowledgeable and fact-based opinion.

 

Problem with the Voters' Decision Making Process:

If I go to the grocery with no knowledge about cereal nutrition, cost, taste, fiber content, etc and choose Fruit Loops because I always choose Fruit Loops and my father and grandfather always chose Fruit Loops; I believe that is a poor decision making process.

I know many people that vote in this manner.

 

In contrast, let's say that I have done some reading about different cereals and have compared several variables, including their nutritional values, cost, fiber content, and flavors.

Then, armed with this information, I go to the grocery store and amongst the many choices (or perhaps even between 2 choices in a small store), I pick a cereal that has highest nutritional value, is low in cost, filled with healthy fiber and also has a flavor that me an family likes.

In this case, I have certainly made a thoughtful and informed choice; and most likely a better choice for me and my family.

 

Conclusion:

If I have only 2 choices, I would like for at least one of those choices to be low in sugar and low in artificial ingredients. I would like for at least one of them to be "healthy" and be good for me and my family; for it/them to be filled with nutrition, whole grains, oats and fiber.

Of course, more choices might be better, but more of the same is not of much use to me.

In other words, Cap'n Crunch and it's counterparts are not good choices for me either.

They have much the same nutritional value as Fruit Loops.

In this case, 3 choices is not much better than 2.

 

So, currently, I have only two poor choices to choose from; Fruit Loops and Lucky Charms.

They are both making me and my family ill.

And more sugary brands of cereal is not a solution.

Edited February 18, 2009 by DrDNA

[iNow]

Have you tried granola? Maybe they will have some at the feed store if your grocer doesn't carry it (translation: Move to Canada).

 

 

This has been a really good discussion so far. Thanks to everyone who has taken part. I tend to agree that part of the problem is our election type. We have the first to the post concept, and also the fact that the party can raise ginormous sums of money for advertising and meet & greets (whereas an individual really cannot, unless you're Ross Perot).

 

Further, the party seems to give cover to the crazies, and bring everyone down with them.

 

Finally, many people really do vote straight party tickets... every year, every election. If they're not voting for the individual, but are instead voting for the party, that's clearly a problem.

 

We need to figure a way out of this, though, and the only people who can change the laws are the ones who benefit from it. We're in a bit of a bind, it would seem.

[Saryctos]

I really feel that the failures you're describing are less of a party # thing, and more of a disparity in representation among ever growing populations. There may be only 2 prominent parties, but there are plenty of personalities out there, the people struggle to find representatives they can identify with when all their eccentricities are marginalized by appealing to a large group of people. I feel like there needs to be a surge in local and state government power to correct this trend. I think the political stagnation comes from an increase on focusing on the federal level for too much legislature. If states had the power to decide to conduct stem cell research on their own, this would, in my opinion make far less people upset about it. The main problem in the federal arena is that you have a large number of people who refuse to have their name tagged on a piece of legislature, now if it was state level they wouldn't even have a say, so they would be able to save face, and not interfere with something they would have no control over anyways.

 

You can have pro-gun democrats, and atheist republicans on the local level, it's just the fed that we see the proliferation of staunch partisanship and cookie-cutter politicians. If we can't solve these problems, we can at least try to lessen their impact on daily life by transferring more power to the states.

 

EDIT: I was going to say something about increasing the size of state government for better representation aswell, but I only get so many breaks @ work =/

 

RE-EDIT(2nd break yay ^^): Another thing that comes to mind is describing what exactly do people feel is wrong? Not the cause, or ideology behind the undesirables, but the actual problem that people attempt to avoid. A possible breakdown of what people do and don't like about elections, where they feel inadequate, where they feel helpless. The first step in figuring out solutions to problems is outlining what exactly constitutes the problem. Is it the number of parties? Is it the power the parties wield? Is there a framework for changing the problems we face already in place? Is there a problem with that? Too many questions stem from what appears to be the root cause of the two party system outcry for me to think it's the parties at fault.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Saryctos

[DrDNA]

Have you tried granola?

Yes I have and I like it very much.

I probably would vote for someone that ran on a Granola-type (hard to chew, but better for the health of the country) ticket, as opposed to the more unhealthy Fruit Loop (eg, Democrat) ticket or Lucky Charms (eg, Republican) ticket, primarily for the reasons stated above.

 

Maybe they will have some at the feed store if your grocer doesn't carry it (translation: Move to Canada).

 

I don't understand your point.

You want me to move to Canada?

What advantage(s) does Canada have to offer?

[Pangloss]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, to get anything done in this country we have to get the seal of approval of a bunch of science-hating bible thumping homophobes

 

I would like these people removed from the political discourse.

 

While I don't agree with the stated premise, I do understand -- you would add a party that would have as its platform the removal of "science-hating bible thumping homophobes" from all political influence in this country.

 

Do you think that's how such a party would be perceived by everyone who learned about its platform from their usual information sources? (I think it's obvious how that story would play on Fox, but do you think you'd really get much better representation on CNN or MSNBC?)

 

So ultimately how popular do you believe this party would be, and how much influence do you feel it could really achieve? Haven't you really just created another worthless niche party there?

 

 

We need to figure a way out of this, though, and the only people who can change the laws are the ones who benefit from it. We're in a bit of a bind, it would seem.

 

Why?

 

 

If states had the power to decide to conduct stem cell research on their own, this would, in my opinion make far less people upset about it.

 

They did. In fact stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, was never banned in the US. It was only federal funding that was stopped. But several states considered programs, and just a couple of years ago California ran a $3 billion program paid for by bonds (no idea what came of it, but I remember it passing).

Edited February 18, 2009 by Pangloss

[Mr Skeptic]

How many would be the correct number of parties?

 

Ideally zero, but failing that, as many as possible. With zero parties, people could run as individuals, be voted for as individuals, and there would be no Republican-Democrat pissing match. However, short of outlawing parties (which would be a bad idea) we are not going to get zero parties.

 

Therefore the best solution is to have as many parties as possible, so that a person can choose one that closely matches their ideals, and each party would have limited power. Also with so many parties, attacking an opponent's party would be rather silly since it would just make the both of them look bad and all the other candidates would benefit (whereas with the two party system, attacking the opponent's party is beneficial if it makes them look more bad than the attack makes you look like an ass). Also, having multiple parties would allow for some true diversity, whereas what we have now is more of the same with different sides on wedge issues (while abortion etc are important issues, they have also been issues for thousands of years so it's not like one party or the other is actually going to solve it).

 

While officially we can have as many parties as we want, our voting system (winner takes all) means that votes for losing parties are lost, so that people avoid voting for any but the two most likely to win. The only way to get lots of viable parties is to change our voting system. There are many that would work.

[DrDNA]

Therefore the best solution is to have as many parties as possible, so that a person can choose one that closely matches their ideals, and each party would have limited power.

 

Most people don't make an effort to learn anything substantial about their candidates and their respective platforms before they vote now.

 

Practically speaking, what criteria do you anticipate that the (already uniformed) public are going to use to decide between a half dozen or more choices?

Simply by the process of dilution, it would have to be comparatively less info about each candidate and their respective platforms, don't you think?

 

Would not the messages, including the few good ones, get lost in the noise?

Edited February 19, 2009 by DrDNA

[bascule]

While I don't agree with the stated premise, I do understand -- you would add a party that would have as its platform the removal of "science-hating bible thumping homophobes" from all political influence in this country.

 

No, I'd like a moderate party to marginalize them. Right now they retain influence because they dominate the power structure of the extant Republican party.

[jackson33]

I have been kind of hoping folks living under the 'Parliamentary System' would join in this conversation. If any one living in the US, thinks choice of the electorate is limited, Prime Ministers, come from their Parliament.

 

In short the US has a system of Three Branches, with separation of powers. The hoped end result being a form of checks and balances. Parliamentary systems are designed for total power of the prevailing affiliation of the Parliament.

 

An example in the US how a third party can influence an election, which in some degree has happened 13 times; If an idea (abolishing of Slavery 1860) or the or some articulate individual (Lincoln) they could join with another party (Whig) and win an election. Lincoln himself was not even on 8-9 State Ballets, but managed to win (important) with a majority. Although Jefferson ran as a 'Republican' opposed to Democratic-Republican, the party of Adams/Washington, Adams he defeated, the birth of the Republican Party was with his election, formed a few years earlier.

 

Todays issues are not quite as important as Slavery or the later election decider Womens Suffrage , but many folks are concerned or becoming concerned with our Federal Judicial System, which for 50-60 years has been intruding into State Issues. More from the District Appeal/Civil/Criminal Courts than the Supreme Court, never the less effects State Rights. Abortion, gun rights to this forums Gay Rights and really on to many other topics, Federal Courts are making demands on States intolerable to the electorate to most States in some, although different subject.

 

FYI; Today, in the event a third party were to win the electoral vote of say California or some larger State with a high count 'winner take all', causing no one party getting a majority, it goes to the Federal House of Representatives to choose the President. A tie, is the same, but am trying to explain 3rd Party potential.

 

iNow; Ross Perot and Mitt Romney are not the only two wealthy folks to finance their own campaigns, buts it's said no one has ever won the final election on their own money. I'd argue this, but another topic.

 

Skeptic; The folks that run on 'sure to lose' tickets are trying to voice some opinion or agenda. Some have conventions, get some air time and a good deal of attention. Many on those tickets are actually R/D, in local politics or even at the Federal level, actively voicing those opinions on a daily basis.

 

Pangloss; Are you suggestion the electorate should be ignorant of issues ("why"), or that something possible to correct this problem not be done. HBO's production 'John Adams' was one of their highest rated show and I think the largest selling CD in history, certainly for a Historical Documentary. Their is a thirst IMO, by young folks and others too busy to follow politics, for capsuled information or education.

[waitforufo]

iNow,

As jackson33 mentioned George Washington was against political parties and said so in his farewell address. It's interesting reading from the person most responsible for the success of our democratic republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_Farewell_Address

 

All,

I personally don’t see a lot of need for parties with regard to most representative elective offices (house & senate). Parties seem to play a more important role in executive offices. Americans like having elected, not selected, executives. If we had lots of parties, under our current system, congress (either state or federal) would often be called on to select our executives. As T. Roosevelt said, the power of the president is primarily the bully pulpit. I think that power would be diminished for most selected presidents. That might not be such a bad thing, but govenement would move even slower than today.

 

The electoral college system was put into place so that small states could have some say in the election of national presidents. This is particularly true when elections are close. This system, as we all know, has had its problems. Some would change it but I for one think the cure would be worse than the illness. Franklin said that we have a republic "if we can keep it." I think we forget sometimes just how fragile our republic is. Changes should be done with great caution.

 

One change to our current system would be to require our executives to win at least 50 % + 1 vote of the popular vote. If several candidates run, and none wins the 50% +1, the top two are selected and another vote is held. Some states use this system.

 

The problem I have with this system is that in a large field of candidates, more often than you would imagine, the nut job wins. Somehow nut jobs have a phenomenal ability to organize and get out the nut job vote. In a field of good viable candidates plus one nut job, sane people split their votes evenly over the good candidates. So the second election includes the nut job. This should be a simple choice but many people can think of that one hot button issue where that good candidate differs from them. So the nut job gets elected.

 

When selecting executives, people can fall back on the party platform. This candidate may not agree with my hot button opinion, but the party does. This gives them cover to vote for the good person over the nut job. Party power, in my opinion, then flows from the elected executives.

 

Perhaps only executives should be elected. House and Senate seats could be filled by a process similar to jury duty.

 

Dr. DNA

I eat oat meal, no sugar, for breakfast every morning while dreaming of Lucky Charms.

 

Pangloss,

George Bush funded embryonic stem cell research on a restricted set of stem cell lines.

 

Bascule,

Be careful what you wish for. Those "science-hating bible thumping homophobes" just might win every election. The two party system may be restricting them more than you think.

[Pangloss]

George Bush funded embryonic stem cell research on a restricted set of stem cell lines.

 

Thanks for the reminder; I'd forgotten.

 

On the subject of elimination of political parties, suggested by several in this thread, I think it's an interesting line of speculation and I don't mean to sound like a negative Nancy, but that does raise a different set of problems. The prominent visibility of the two political parties and the requirement that they be involved in the debate and enactment of any issue into law creates a predetermination forum that might not exist if they were eliminated. It also runs the risk of creating a fluctuating environment of factionalism, which would be difficult for outsiders to decipher, and it's already hard to separate the signal from the noise coming out of Washington these days.

 

On the subject of parliamentary systems, again I find myself raining on the parade, but it's important to recognize that those systems have their flaws. The British have spend the last ten or twenty years trying to figure out what to do about their upper house, and their latest plan actually calls for renaming it from the "House of Lords" to the "Senate"! The point being that they look to us for ideas too, and it's not a bad thing to cast that net, just be careful opening it once you get it on board lest you have to throw it back (e.g. iNow's point about Americans wanting their officials to be elected).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Pangloss; Are you suggestion the electorate should be ignorant of issues ("why"), or that something possible to correct this problem not be done.

 

I'm asking what problem it is that we are trying to solve. There seems to be a general consensus that there is one, but I'm not clear on what it is.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Point of order:

The purpose of a political party is not to represent a constituency. It's purpose is to define and sponsor an ideology.

 

Elected officials, on the other hand, are charged with the responsibility of objectively representing a constituency's best interests within a non-partisan framework (the law), and they're responsible for doing this in spite of their ideology.

 

So if there's a failure of the parties, it cannot be a failure to represent people's best interests on an objective level. It would have to be a failure to represent a specific ideology that seems to be felt by a lot of people. That seems to be the case here, but I'm not sure it has been adequately defined -- at least not in such a way as could be expressed by the platform of a new party. Bascule puts forth one example that could be viewed as a tenet (platform plank?) -- the idea of disempowering religious extremists from the political process. That's a perfectly valid ideological position (and one I happen to share), and exactly the sort of thing you could build a party around. As I suggested before I think such a party would find a great deal of difficulty getting the kind of support enjoyed by the Democratic or Republican parties in this country, but there's certainly nothing wrong with the idea.

 

I have a suggestion: Why don't we see if we can build a platform that we all agree upon, and which would have the same level of appeal that the Democratic or Republican parties enjoy today?

 

Suggest some planks and we'll see if we can put it together. I can assemble them in a closed sticky thread or something as needed, and then we can vote on them.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[npts2020]

IMO no political party will ever have the "appeal" of the Republican or Democratic party. Once you open the door to viable third (IMO second) parties there is likely to be diluting of electorate support, many voters would likely not remain in the R-D camp.

If parties were banned altogether, it would force voters to learn something about the candidates in order to know who to vote for.

Suggestion for platform building, start with how contentious issues are to be decided.

[JohnB]

I have been kind of hoping folks living under the 'Parliamentary System' would join in this conversation. If any one living in the US' date=' thinks choice of the electorate is limited, Prime Ministers, come from their Parliament.

 

In short the US has a system of Three Branches, with separation of powers. The hoped end result being a form of checks and balances. Parliamentary systems are designed for total power of the prevailing affiliation of the Parliament.[/quote']

jackson, I do indeed live under the Parlimentary System. While our Prime Minister comes from Parliment, we still have the principle of "Separation of Powers", we just use it slightly differently.

 

I don't know where you got the idea that "Parliamentary systems are designed for total power of the prevailing affiliation of the Parliament" as it just ain't so. While the governing party passes the laws, they must fall within the limits imposed on them by the Constitution and the "Ancient Laws". A simple example is that the Australian gov cannot suspend Habeus Corpus. Habeus Corpus can only be suspended by the Australian people through Referendum. Any attempt by the gov to suspend Habeus Corpus would be instantly ruled unconstitutional and the law becomes null and void.

 

Also, pork barreling "riders" cannot be introduced or passed as they are illegal under our Constitution. This particular problem of your system we simply don't have.

 

Another difference is that only "The Parliment" can pass laws. Nothing becomes law without being debated and passed by both Houses. No "Emergency measures" or "Executive Orders". No passing laws for future ratification. If it hasn't been passed by both Houses, it isn't a law and cannot in any way be enforced.

 

Having our Executive come from Parliment also has benefits. Our "Ministers" are the rough equivalent to your "Secretaries". Your "Secretary of Defense" is answerable to his boss, the President, our "Minister of Defense" is answerable to the Parliment and can be questioned at any time on any part of the Portfolio. Ministers under the Parlimentary system are called on to defend their action, decisions and the actions of their departments every day during the period set aside as "Question Time". Answers are part of the public record (Hansard) and are almost immediately available to the general populace.

 

Keeping with defense, the Minister may answer a question concerning an ongoing military operation "in camera" with the answer being recorded in a different version of Hansard, but he still has to answer.

 

Ultimately of course, every Minister has to answer to the people every 3 years, as does the Prime Minister.

 

The governing party's hold on Parliment is entirely dependent on how well the Ministers perform, which leads to greater scrutiny of their actions. If you have a bad Secretary of Defense (and everybody knows it) this will reflect badly on the Presidents chances for re-election. If we have a bad Minister of Defense (and everybody knows it) it reflects badly on his entire party's chances for re-election.

 

In all, it's not that bad a system. Which is as it should be. Our Constitution took some 10 years to write and was based on the three great Democracies of the 19th Century, The United Kingdom, America and France. Our Founding Fathers looked at what problems these three had had and specifically wrote passages to avoid these problems.

[iNow]

Thanks for the reminder; I'd forgotten.

I believe you mistakenly attributed a quote to me when it actually came from waitforufo. He deserves the praises you offered.

[jackson33]

John; Thank you for the input. Before posting, I read through the Wikipedia version of *Parliamentary Systems* and do realize there are many formats/models. There is/was no intent to undermine any of them, but establish that their is a difference, in particular what the US practices today. You will note the US Constitution, which outlines a system for governing is MUCH closer to Parliamentary than what we practice today.

 

In practice however, the US has maintained two party platforms in governing the total most all its history, under separations. The Executive and Legislatures have rarely been the same party. We cannot oust a President for lack of confidence, where in most P systems, the PM can be, regardless of popularity. Frankly, during times like today and with the issues involved, it would be a full time job, just maintaining a coalition with a Congress.

 

Pangloss; I can't over emphasize the founders concerns over an ignorant societies influence over matters that they would/could not by nature have interest in or understanding of the consequences. Of all the buffers or restrictions placed on who was then eligible have in large part been ignored or abolished over the years. Since we have this situation and it's not possible or desirable to change policy, something should be done, to educate/indoctrinate or explain to the electorate and from outside some party representatives understanding, as much of what that vote may mean to the Nations future opposed to their personal concerns. I am not going to pretend knowing the answer, but as it was suggested and IMO agreeing, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, or get ready for a Hanna Montana Administration.

[ParanoiA]

How many would be the correct number of parties?

 

4, in my opinion. Statist, Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian. Or no parties at all. Probably the best solution is indeed, zero, but that doesn't seem very realistic.

 

I remember watching this bit on group psychology where kids in blue shirts naturally started competing with kids in red shirts even though they were not instructed to do so, nor were they ever associated as a group - they did it on their own without really talking about it.

 

So maybe we should insist on a dress code that all of them wear the same T-shirt and blue jeans (suits are pretentious, seriously, cover your ugly torso with some cloth and get your eye on the ball here) and no party affiliation. Although ideological preferences won't be a secret, perhaps there wouldn't be the same partisan-like vehemence at the expense of national interest.

[Saryctos]

You can't simply throw out the parties, they provide funding for campaigns in exchange for idealistic compliance. If you get rid of these funds, then you'll be back to voting in whoever has the most money. If you try to limit funding, then you'll end up electing people who sensationalize their politics to get more air-time in the media. The party system as it stands is a central advertising agency really, only thing is, you can't stick your ad on their wall unless it says what they want

 

Although if you pressured me into a number other than 2, I'd have to say 3, or 5 would be a good number of parties. Use an odd number so that there's always something tipping the scales. A big part of the problem we face is political stagnation. We have to shake things up and keep everything moving or we get into a back and forth rut where America swings left to right just counter-acting the other when they're in power while gaining no net benefit.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Saryctos

[iNow]

Although if you pressured me into a number other than 2, I'd have to say 3, or 5 would be a good number of parties. Use an odd number so that there's always something tipping the scales. A big part of the problem we face is political stagnation. We have to shake things up and keep everything moving or we get into a back and forth rut where America swings left to right just counter-acting the other when they're in power while gaining no net benefit.

 

This is part of the problem to which I was trying to call attention. Thank you for your clarity, Saryctos. I also agree with the points you made about funding.

 

We spend all of our time using labels as arguments instead of merit and facts, and the two parties with which we are all so familiar have become very powerful, and all too often we seem to suffer from there not being a third (or fifth) power center to move the scales one way or another.

[Pangloss]

I believe you mistakenly attributed a quote to me when it actually came from waitforufo. He deserves the praises you offered.

 

Thanks, I fixed the post. I appreciate that, waitforufo.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So... who wants to build the SFN Political Party?

 

I think it could be interesting!

[iNow]

So... who wants to build the SFN Political Party?

 

I think it could be interesting!

 

See, but SFN is a prime example about how none of us agree about everything. We are each thinking people who approach issues with our own perspectives, and hence a single party in a representative republic would never adequately meet our needs.

 

SFN seems to be a key example of why zero parties is the best option. Each issue is judged for its merit, whether it's a good idea or not, as opposed to judging an idea based on who presented it or who supports it. Zero parties shifts the approach from "party-based decisions" instead to "governing-based decisions."

 

 

Many seem to agree that zero parties is best, just difficult to achieve given our current infrastructure. Maybe we should focus less on the difficulty of achieving it and instead place our efforts and energies into actually making it so.

 

I'll need a few days to pull together a project team who will work with me to create some tashiro and gantt charts and will report back with an action plan.

[ParanoiA]

Many seem to agree that zero parties is best, just difficult to achieve given our current infrastructure. Maybe we should focus less on the difficulty of achieving it and instead place our efforts and energies into actually making it so.

 

First of all, good post, I entirely agree. On this bit, it could be interesting to see how the general public feels about it. We're all a bunch of geeks that really get into thinking and critiquing our philosophical conclusions, but I wonder how normal people would think about it - all 3 seconds of it.

[Saryctos]

See, but SFN is a prime example about how none of us agree about everything. We are each thinking people who approach issues with our own perspectives, and hence a single party in a representative republic would never adequately meet our needs.

This is however a perfect opportunity to explore the very dynamic that makes this option not viable. What makes it impossible for all these differing views to be represented by a single party? Given that we are under a representative governance system and even people within a single party have differing views on many subjects, yet these parties are massively successful*. I think it would be a good experiment to say the least.

 

SFN seems to be a key example of why zero parties is the best option. Each issue is judged for its merit, whether it's a good idea or not, as opposed to judging an idea based on who presented it or who supports it. Zero parties shifts the approach from "party-based decisions" instead to "governing-based decisions."

 

Many seem to agree that zero parties is best, just difficult to achieve given our current infrastructure. Maybe we should focus less on the difficulty of achieving it and instead place our efforts and energies into actually making it so.

 

I think, in all truth, that zero parties is the same as 1 party(assuming there is no other party to compete against).

[npts2020]

I will be the first to stick my neck out and propose a first plank for a platform. All policies, programs, and initiatives will be designed according to the best science available at the time.

[Mr Skeptic]

SFN seems to be a key example of why zero parties is the best option. Each issue is judged for its merit, whether it's a good idea or not, as opposed to judging an idea based on who presented it or who supports it. Zero parties shifts the approach from "party-based decisions" instead to "governing-based decisions."

 

 

Many seem to agree that zero parties is best, just difficult to achieve given our current infrastructure. Maybe we should focus less on the difficulty of achieving it and instead place our efforts and energies into actually making it so.

 

Actually, I now think that having zero parties would be impossible given the current situation. In an earlier post, I suggested that zero parties was the best solution and multiple parties the second best. However, after thinking about it for a bit I changed my mind. Politics is difficult for a lot of people and in practice we can't spend the amount of time examining each candidate that we ought to, as we would not accomplish anything else. Having multiple parties allows others in your party to help you decide, a group of like-minded individuals to discuss with, and dare I say better representation. While many parties will be based on wedge "issues" some parties could be based on more substantiative differences, and more importantly separate the two. Here I am thinking of the parties more as your political advisers than the current two party monstrosity that forces you to support a lot of crap you don't necessarily want because that is less bad than the alternative. If we had thousands of political parties (arrange them hierarchically by similarity like for Christian denominations) each party could very nicely match the views of the individuals, while not forcing each individual to spend an ungodly amount of time studying each candidate (and I suspect there would be hundreds of candidates if there were no parties) to know whether they agree with them.

 

Again though, with the winner take all voting system the above would just serve to weaken the parties that split. I think that the best voting method for the above would be a rated voting system. That way you can vote as strongly as you like for as many people as you like, against as many people as you like, and neutral to people you don't care one way or the other. It also seems like a natural way to vote, though of course will be more complex than what we have now. An advantage of this would be that the voting system allows you to judge people on their own merit, not how they compare to others. And if we had multiple parties, those who don't have time to study each candidate themselves can take the advice from whichever parties they agree with or disagree with to help make their choices.