Imagine...There Were No Parties

[ParanoiA]

It isn't hard to do...you could say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

 

(I couldn't find a thread on this, but I'm just sure this was a topic at some point.)

 

So what if there were no parties? What if we didn't create partisanship and competition right out of the gate by proposing the whole pyschological notion of grouping up, permanently more or less?

 

Here's a decent answer I found doing a google search on "What purpose do political parties serve?"

 

First' date=' they consolidate the message of the party, come up with the platform, and put it forth to the general public.

 

Second, they find candidates with shared values to run for offices.

 

Third, they try to raise money for their candidates and their issues.

 

Fourth, they publicize their views, and motivate like-minded votes.

 

Source: 10 years of interning for Republican Congressman, and 8 years of campaigning for 2 Democratic Senators

 

If that's a fair list, then I can see the immediate attraction and the obvious contention. Consolidating the message of a group is why marijuana laws continue to put good people in prison, because groups of people are limiting their thoughts right out of the gate. Priority can still take place without "limiting the platform". The word "platform" is insulting as it presupposes a limited scope of purpose. Total BS for folks making 160 grand or more a year with an amazing, lifetime benefits package.

 

Candidates are supposed to share values with their constituents, not a group of legislators. And raising money for their candidates is precisely how they are able to keep out "fringe" party candidates altogether, cementing this party duo-poly we're stuck with.

 

 

I'm not sure if this list represents the thoughts of those in here or not. I'm expecting to learn something here, because there must be a good reason for parties beyond what I've been able to find.

 

From what I can tell, political parties are a way of consolidating power by grouping up. This is an insulting compromise and creates the obligation to a group of people that they don't represent, at the expense of those that elected them - the ones they are supposed to represent; their constituents.

 

And I don't think I have to remind a forum full of scientists about the psychological nature of competition - how even shirt color can cause the "us vs them" mentallity that ruins the point of our government - diversity of ideas and debate that represents the people's voice.

 

What do you all think? Do we really need political parties? Without them, wouldn't we have to actually go learn about someone instead of using guilt by association due to the 'R' or 'D' label?

[jackson33]

The best argument opposed to 'Individuals' (no party) running for office, could be taken from the 2005 California 'Recall/Election' of Gray Davis, which was as chaotic as anything ever in US politics. 135 people eventually were placed on the ballot, with a 50-50 chance Davis would or would not be recalled, in the first place. Then who ever won the election, technically could have become their Governor with a couple percent of the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_California_recall

 

Think iNow, did have a similar thread based on 'two parties' being enough. However for a history of Parties in US Politics;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

 

Taking out the Election of the President/VP, party's serve as an instrument for organization and under the US System, choice of all other persons are to the States prerogative. Also, most issues are not necessarily controversial, when they are it's usually how to achieve a similar end result.

 

If your thinking the P&VP, why not simply go back to how the Constitution addressed the issue. Either let State Legislatures or US House District's (435)choose a person to represent their interest, go to Washington DC and hash out a winner, not the 306 million relatively uninterested or the already elected representatives, but chosen representatives with one and only ONE purpose. We are using both forms anyway and the original system is currently symbolic, though there is no obligation in any State today(I know of) for the electors to actually comply with districts vote count. Might add the Congress has always had the right to reject any choice for President (VP) for many reasons, at the opening session of the newly elected Congress.

 

I will disagree on 'Platforms', having argued ALL parties have place their candidates ahead of the ideas those candidates have subscribed to in order to run under one banner. For instance I think Ron Paul makes a great deal of sense or John McCain makes little sense, if you read the actual 2008 Republican Platform in total, yet Paul gather nothing and of course McCain was the nominee. Then remember the RNC/DNC National Platforms (only concerns two people) and each State, while embracing the National for four days of so (Conventions) and each States Platforms usually have no similarity. Olympia Snow for instance or the Maine Chapter description of the RP, would never work in Georgia as a Republican, nor would Newt Gingrich or Georgia's approach work in Maine. That is why we are called a Union of States.

[bascule]

I think humans naturally factionalize

[ParanoiA]

I think humans naturally factionalize

 

They do. And without the benefit of permanent self labelling, could this faction be dynamic from issue to issue? Without the official label, doesn't that remove the intensity of obligation to a group, even if they are in the group de facto?

[Mr Skeptic]

I wish!

 

And raising money for their candidates is precisely how they are able to keep out "fringe" party candidates altogether, cementing this party duo-poly we're stuck with.

 

Nope, its not about raising money. Because our voting system only allows us to vote for one person, and we know which two people are going to win, almost no one bothers to vote for a third party -- precisely because they aren't expected to win. It would be "wasting your vote", something both parties will bring to your attention. See Duverger's Law. Amusingly, our voting system means that the more candidates running under a similar platform, the less likely they are to win against a single opponent with the opposite platform.

 

Not all voting systems have this problem. For example, Range voting

 

From what I can tell, political parties are a way of consolidating power by grouping up. This is an insulting compromise and creates the obligation to a group of people that they don't represent, at the expense of those that elected them - the ones they are supposed to represent; their constituents.

 

Parties are not necessarily a bad thing. They help people group together to accomplish their goals, which is a good thing. The problem happens when you have politicians "belonging" to a party, rather than a party supporting certain politicians.

 

What do you all think? Do we really need political parties?

 

No, but they cannot be eliminated with the possibly exception of actually outlawing them. However, their number can be increased, and their individual power correspondingly reduced, by switching to a voting system that does not tend to result in a two party system.

[iNow]

It isn't hard to do...you could say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

 

(I couldn't find a thread on this, but I'm just sure this was a topic at some point.)

 

So what if there were no parties?

 

It was my hope to explore a similar idea when I opened this thread over here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38647

 

Thanks for breathing new life into the discussion.

[bascule]

They do. And without the benefit of permanent self labelling, could this faction be dynamic from issue to issue? Without the official label, doesn't that remove the intensity of obligation to a group, even if they are in the group de facto?

 

No, because as soon as factions are created you wind up with the in-group versus out-group thing, which seems to be an essential part of human nature.

 

Also, only the strongest factions will survive, and for that to even happen they have to have the will to survive.

 

For example, I think the Republicans are great at playing politics... much better than the Democrats... this came about through yeahs of evolution as a party.

 

Given the power and resources (i.e. people, money) the Democrats and Republicans already wield it's a bad environment for third parties to evolve in the US.

[John Cuthber]

I think humans naturally factionalize

 

There are two sorts of humans, those who factionalise...

 

Seriously I think that, if it's not an inevitable human trait to "hang out with like minded people" it's a very strong one. People have certainly been know to do very odd things as a result of peer pressure.

[john5746]

No, because as soon as factions are created you wind up with the in-group versus out-group thing, which seems to be an essential part of human nature.

 

So we would have to try and make a system that tries to limit this natural tendency, just as we do with social systems. Can't eliminate it, but smaller, more targeted parties might be better than two big tent parties?