Quantcast

Would the best interests of our country be better served by ELIMINATING all political parties, thereby eliminating partisan agendas and forcing politicians to run solely on their own records and the issues?

tncdel 2011/01/05 02:01:19
You!
Add Photos & Videos
That would also force voters to become more knowledgeable about who they vote for. Plus it would eliminate voter-booth-block-checking according to party lines.

Imagine too how many other obstacles to good government that would likewise eliminate, by not having to toe-the-party-line [such as partisan filibusters, party agendas, etc.].

And that would eliminate the costly expenses of staging lengthy party nomination processes. I bet that if we had all the money spent over the last century by the Democrats and the Republicans staging conventions and all the surround hoopla, we could pay off the National Debt and have enough left over to safely fund social security!

Then too would be gone the need to compromise by settling for a less-than-awe-inspiring candidate instead of who the voters actually want.

If everyone would boycott all political parties by simply re-registering as an Independent, as I myself am, then the parties would shrivel up and die out simply due to lack of interest. So there would be no need to try twisting arms in Congress to commit political party suicide getting them to enact law to ban political parties.

What say YOU? Are you ready to think for yourself as an INDIVIDUAL? Choosing your own path.

Or has your mind become too indoctrinated to stop allowing yourself to continue being subjected to the indignity of being just another nameless "party animal" in a herd of donkeys or elephants?


:)~
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • dayg 2011/01/06 00:45:59
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    dayg
    +1
    I like this idea. The beauty of it is it's so obvious I wonder why it's taken till now to realize the detriment of political parties upon our country.
  • Striker 2011/01/05 19:47:07
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    Striker
    The available answers don't really address the question.

    It would be nice to get rid of political parties, but let's not waste time -- that'll never happen in this lifetime.
  • dayg Striker 2011/01/06 00:54:04
    dayg
    +2
    I disagree. Because what's happening is that more and more people are getting fed up with both major political parties, and the minor ones have no grass roots appeal. Look at the poll numbers for voter approval on Congress. It's like below 10%. People are becoming more and more disenchanted with political parties. Apathy is the motivation, or lack thereof, that will cause more and more people to switch from being a Democrat or a Republican to being an Independent.

    When the percentage of voters registered as Independents exceed 50%, it will precipitate a collapse of all political parties. For there will be Independents running for office as a non-party majority. How would someone running as a Democrat or a Republican with only a 20% voter base going to beat an Independent?
  • Striker dayg 2011/01/06 02:19:29
    Striker
    I don't think that we disagree at all. The fact is that the DemReps have done their homework well, almost as if they conspired, to make it nigh impossible to get a 3rd party up and running and to maintain ballot status. Those in control don't relinquish control easily. The laws they made in every state are designed to keep this a two-party system by making it rough to keep a 3rd party going - it distracts much energy and resources to simply keeping on the ballot. So that's why it's a waste of time. This goes back to the late 70's in Arizona when I worked my buns off helping get the Libertarians on the ballot, only to see them forced to re-qualify all over again the next round.
  • tncdel Striker 2011/01/06 06:59:30
    tncdel
    You're right about a 3rd party. But not about a NON-party. An Independent is a LACK THEREOF a party. Although the Dems and GOP can squelch a 3rd party, it can't stop its own from migrating away. How would they stop someone from registering as an Independent? Impossible!
  • Striker tncdel 2011/01/06 07:32:51
    Striker
    I would be all for a "non-party" or independent or no parties at all BUT...
    A "party" is a political organization already in place and with the abilities and perhaps the money to help promote candidates, to establish platforms, and a wealth of help to the party's candidates. It is that with which 3rd-4th-5th parties and independents in particular must compete. That makes it really tough and tends to preserve the status quo. The only exception on the national scene whom I can recall was Ross Perot, although there may be some others.

    Wish I had a better, more useful answer!
  • Lady Whitewolf 2011/01/05 10:07:58
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    Lady Whitewolf
    +2
    I'm actually a democrat but that is beginning to look more and more like a good idea.
  • sglmom 2011/01/05 07:59:40 (edited)
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    sglmom
    +1
    THEORETICALLY .. great idea ...

    HOWEVER .. here's the problem with this overall ...

    When the primaries roll about .. in the state where I am at .. basically -- you go to the primaries and vote along with the registered party (and in my location -- there is no 'independent' primary at all) ..

    So until we remove all the labels and can vote even in primaries across the party lines (or just do away with parties in the first place) .. then this is unworkable overall ...

    (But I do vote on BEST QUALIFIED .. not the poser who has the most commercials/adverts)

    Here's what I use as a key ...

    The MORE Commercials, Adverts, Signs posted in MORE places (especially when they are put out like platoons) .. then usually .. (as it turns out) -- the candidate that does this is the biggest idiot of the bunch (after listening to them speak).

    Has anyone else noticed this too?
  • tncdel sglmom 2011/01/05 10:15:20
    tncdel
    +3
    The only reason for a primary in the first place is to nominate a candidate to represent a particular party. But that whole drawn out waste-of-money process would be eliminated when we have weaned ourselves off the party system.

    Imagine candidates running INDIVIDUALLY, not affiliated with any party whatsoever, and running solely on the issues, their own records, and whatever donations received by EARNING voter respect, not a party entitlement.
  • sglmom tncdel 2011/01/05 15:13:38
    sglmom
    +1
    THAT is why I pointed out what I did .. as it now exists .. we'd have to literally transform everything ..
  • dayg sglmom 2011/01/06 00:57:09 (edited)
    dayg
    +1
    I don't see it that way. It would be pretty much its own reformer. Simply a vacuum filling in, because people will be leaving the GOP and Dems. And those parties will eventually fold when their combined membership falls below 50% of the voter base.
  • sglmom dayg 2011/01/06 01:03:10
    sglmom
    But one does have to reform things by doing away with the Primaries ... that is the first step in the entire process of making elections more about the POSITION .. the Rights/Responsibilities and Checks/Balances .. their knowledge of what can and can't be done ...

    Instead of just a contest of 'posers'.
  • Striker sglmom 2011/01/06 02:24:27 (edited)
    Striker
    +1
    It would help if we could simply require runoff elections between those who garnered, say 25%, of the votes. As it stands now no runoff except if it's a tie or perhaps a contested vote. This helps maintain the 2-party charade because so many think voting for others is a wasted vote. Hell, most votes are wasted anyway.
  • sglmom Striker 2011/01/06 02:26:39
    sglmom
    +1
    THAT would be a good start .. but it would also add another layer to the process (which may not be the best solution overall based on my knowledge of costs (accrued by government) associated with elections)
  • Striker sglmom 2011/01/06 02:55:03
    Striker
    +1
    Back to the basics, the Constitution, outlaw redistribution. Then if they "must" tax, make them voluntary on an item by item basis. DEfense $1000, Welfare $0, etc
  • sglmom Striker 2011/01/06 03:23:39
    sglmom
    +1
    Definitely .. Defense is specifically called out in the Constititution. We are Responsible Adults and can CHOOSE to help those in temporary need .. OURSELVES .. we don't need the Government to 'redistribute' what we/ve worked so hard for in the first place.
  • Mr.Hoodz the Truth Troll 2011/01/05 05:20:02
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    Mr.Hoodz the Truth Troll
    +1
    Its time the people get rid of these parties. Easy to cast a vote behind a party when you know the average America won't look to see what individual dem or rep voted for. They should do it like they do boxing scores. Say the politicians name then tell me how he voted. This is how we would get rid of the bums.
  • tncdel Mr.Hood... 2011/01/05 10:22:41
    tncdel
    I know that a lot of us will remember, come election time, who voted yes on the Dream Act, trying to give college to illegal aliens at taxpayer expense!
  • A Founding Father 2011/01/05 04:47:33
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    A Founding Father
    +1
    I think this is a great idea. In the past four decades we have witnessed the harm we can bring to ourselves by having a large population voting for an ideology, a "buzz word" if you will, that has/had no real meaning, but was captured by one political party and advertised widely.
    Had the candidates that rode into offices on this failed agenda been forced to run on their own
    credentials and explain their personal goals,we likely would not be mired in the gridlock of competing nothingness as we are today.

    Whether here on Sodahead, or in private conversations with friends and family, I find many who participate in discussions about their Government and politics have little if any knowledge of the
    issues, but glibly repeat whatever words are coined by spokesman for one of the two "Parties".
    Eliminating these barriers to thought and intelligent decision would be a plus.

    The danger, of course, is that the propaganda media would replace political party spokesmen, as Fox network has done already for the Republican Party. Then, the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his Saudia Arabian partner, or Geroge Soros, would have even more influence over our electoral processes and our Government. Somehow we would have to deal with these influences, perhaps best to require that they be required to "report the news" and not be propagandists as they now are.
  • LTMeadows214 2011/01/05 04:38:21
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    LTMeadows214
    +1
    political parties can call themselves what ever name they like, but the bottom line is your either for limited government or big government.
  • dayg LTMeado... 2011/01/06 01:02:39
    dayg
    +1
    So what if an Independent runs for office who is for big government, yet is opposed to abortion and illegal aliens. And another Independent runs against him who is for small government, but is not opposed to abortion and illegal aliens. That would be like a hybrid GOP-Dem candidate running against his mirror image, but, nonetheless is still a GOP-Dem hybrid. At least in terms of the agendas currently appropriated by those two parties.
  • potlatch 2011/01/05 03:31:29
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    potlatch
    +1
    No parties?
    So, if everybody does a 'write in vote', the largest family wins, or maybe the movie star with the largest fan club? Lol
  • tncdel potlatch 2011/01/05 10:19:45
    tncdel
    +2
    No, you would still go to a voter booth where all the candidates are listed, then you select each one according to what you know about them.

    States already have "borad of elections" requirements in place so that a candidate, in order to run for an office, must comply with minimum funding standards and other criteria.
  • potlatch tncdel 2011/01/06 03:31:16 (edited)
    potlatch
    Well, I'm kinda 'thinking outside the box' here. If there were no 'parties' I wonder who would be in charge - who would run that board of election requirements, etc. In other words I wondered just how people would become 'candidates' in the first place. It would be hard for any in charge to be impartial. My first impression was a free for all!

    That's why I so glibly joked about the large families, etc.
    If I'm sounding too 'off the wall', just ignore this, lol.
  • tncdel potlatch 2011/01/06 07:02:59
    tncdel
    +1
    Each state has its own non-partisan "board of elections," right? So the "board of elections" would handle it.
  • keeper 2011/01/05 03:15:37
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    keeper
    +1
    Interesting concept!!!! ( I am an Independent!)
  • BrianMercer 2011/01/05 02:40:37
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    BrianMercer
    +1
    Living in PA, I won't re-register as an Independent because I wouldn't be able to vote in the primaries. Until PA law is changed to allow Independents to vote in primaries, I will register with a party.
  • tncdel BrianMe... 2011/01/05 02:47:21
    tncdel
    +2
    You missed the whole point. What are "primaries?" They are PARTISAN, right? So if we are to eliminate partisan politics, we must refrain from engaging in it. Then, when political parties have faded away from lack of interest, such a thing as a "primary" will be a political dinosaur thing of the past. That brings up also the amount of money that will be saved by not having to stage primaries.
  • BrianMe... tncdel 2011/01/05 02:57:52
    BrianMercer
    +2
    You're right...I did miss the whole point! Thank you.
  • tncdel BrianMe... 2011/01/05 10:20:50
    tncdel
    Old habits die hard. :)~
  • flaca BN-0 2011/01/05 02:14:09
    YES, I'm ready to call my own shots, so I've decided to re-register as an Ind...
    flaca BN-0
    +2
    but then we'd need federally funded campaigns like other countries have. As usual, we're behind in our thinking........
  • tncdel flaca BN-0 2011/01/05 02:26:19
    tncdel
    +1
    No, then each candidate would have to solicit support. If no one donated to his or her campaign, that would simply be the glory of "supply and demand" capitalism at work. Quite simply, those we don't want in office do not deserve our campaign donations.
  • flaca BN-0 tncdel 2011/01/05 02:28:39
    flaca BN-0
    +1
    what if the politician is against a factory that pollutes the rivers, and that factory is a huge company that holds much wealth and backs his/her rival? You're allowing bad companies to get their way.
  • tncdel flaca BN-0 2011/01/05 02:44:09
    tncdel
    +1
    I don't follow your line of reasoning. The solution to that is simple: vote for his or her opponent.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/22 13:30:55

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals