Political Parties Corrupt the American System

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by coolsoldier, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. coolsoldier macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    The 909
    #1
    Political parties have no good purpose in modern society. by representing entire sets of unrelated beliefs, they make sure that most of the sets of beliefs it is possible to have are not only unrepresented but unrepresentable.
    For instance, gun control has nothing to do with abortion, which in turn has nothing to do with the war in iraq. but the political party system means that if I support gun control, I also have to support abortion and oppose the war. Or, if I oppose abortion, I have to oppose gun control and support the war, even though, practically the issues aren't connected at all.
    The big problem is that people like to represent the political spectrum as a line, where everybody sits (on all issues) somewhere between "far left" and "far right," but there is a completely different spectrum for every issue. (To put it in arcane mathematical terms, the "political spectrum" is not a line but an n-dimensional space where n is the number of issues being considered)
    Also, political parties make sure that people who don't hold the prescribed sets of beliefs established by the political parties cannot reasonably vote for third party candidates because the political parties funnel the electable candidates into their prepackaged ideology (both parties are guilty of this).
    Furthermore, political parties create a centralized place for bribery and corruption (it's easier to bribe a centralized political party than 500 representatives) and are powerhouses for manipulating the American people. Political parties aren't mentioned anywhere in the constitution, so IMO we should just get rid of them and have representatives that represent their constituents and not some powerhouse of manipulation and corruption.
     
  2. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #2
    I somewhat agree with you. However, in modern society, as you put it, what would be a better system. One can always complain but do you have an answer to the 2 party system. It seems in countries like israel and others that have the multi-party(faction) aproach are no better off than the 2 party system of america.
     
  3. coolsoldier thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    The 909
    #3
    I want a 0 party system ;) A country doens't need political parties to get things done. Every time a bill comes up, everybody has to vote one way or the other on it, so you're pretty much guaranteed a majority vote on an issue. As for the majority/minority designations in congress, we could always go back to the way it is written in the constitution! (The constitution does not reference political parties at all; if fact a few of our nations early leaders actually spoke against the idea)
     
  4. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #4
    A zero party system will never come about. please be realistic, If there were no partys it would be a free for. Their would be 100+ people running for president and everyone would get like 1% of the vote. or others would back off and endorse canidates with a like mind and then we move to a party system again. Since nearly the begening and ever since then(almost) their has been two well organized parties. And many minor parties that(in recent time) ruin the presidential election for one or the other party. Perot ruined it for Bush and then again for Dole. Then another smaller faction called nader ruined the election for Gore. Their will alway be 2 parties. Be realistic. I am with you that a 2 party system forces people to issues that they dont want to support but their is no realistic workable alternative that is any better.
     
  5. eclipse525 macrumors 6502a

    eclipse525

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    USA, New York
    #5
    Here's a concept. How about a system that is for the people and NOT the fortunate/privledged few?

    OR...no system at all, just do what works!


    Power is the Heroine for the misguided and trouble few. Hence, this system will always be around until people start to do something about it. No one actually takes action until their little world is rocked in some way.


    ~e
     
  6. coolsoldier thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    The 909
    #6
    So you'd have a runoff... Eventually if someone is to get a majority, the feild will be narrowed to two candidates, but why should these behemoth organizations (instead of the american people by popular vote) determine which two candidates are running against each other.

    Also, please remember that the president is not the most important elected official :) I would also like to see candidates in local elections representing the predominant local views instead of those of national organizations.

    Two candidate elections are not the same thing as a two-party system. But I am tired of every candidate in every election representing one of the same two views that are represented by every candidate in any election. Also, eliminating a central control would be a good thing even if it has no effect but make bribery (er, "donations") a little more difficult.
     
  7. D0ct0rteeth macrumors 65816

    D0ct0rteeth

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    #7
    Well, yes.. that is true.. but the deeper truth is that James Madison (the true father of the constitution) based it on the fact that their would be political parties... and those parties were very neccessary.

    Madison was probably the second most powerful Republican (second only to Jefferson) and the reason for the division of power was so that no one can accomplish anything easily, to ensure that no single agenda would succeed.. be it Judicial, Executive or Legislative.

    That same philosophy can also be carried over to the party system.. By constantly struggling with the parties, we therefore ensure that only the most popular and persuasive arguements come to be passed. As much as I may believe that Gun Control is necessary, unless there is overwhelming support from it and support of members of both parties we will never see a bill signed into law.

    The system truly is awesome, and instead of abolishing parties (of which I belong to niether) the real necessity is to change public opinion so that the members of both parties will come to see the truth in an arguement, and not allow the party to dictate thier beliefs.

    - Doc
     
  8. coolsoldier thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    The 909
    #8
    If there were no political parties, any bill would need the independent support of 50% of the members of congress, rather than just the support of 2 parties. And the odds of getting that many people to independently support something that is not supported by the public is much less likely to happen without centralized forces controlling them. So instead of needing "overwhelming support" of both parties (this isn't actually true -- it only needs the support of the majority party) it would need the support of an overwhelming majority majority of the people, which seems like a good thing to me.
     
  9. manitoubalck macrumors 6502a

    manitoubalck

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #9
    Politics currupt in the US No:confused: Couldn't be:rolleyes:, The Republican Admin is more crocked than a room full of Russian cops.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    There does not need to always be 2 parties. And the idea of a runoff is a very good one, or failing that, a ranking method of voting. If I voted for Nader as my first choice in 2000, I actually helped Bush (my least favorite). Now if I could have ranked them, say giving a number from 1 to 3 to my top three picks, and the votes were calculated on that basis then a vote for a 3rd party candidate would not be a vote for the guy you like least.

    Many countries use a coalition system of government where bridging the differences between several parties is key to winning. The whole concept of a two party system is designed to keep those 2 parties in power, even when they have both become corrupt brokers of power and funnels for millions of dollars of what essentially amounts to bribe money.

    Instead of a zero party system, I'd like to see an infinite party system where the number of parties was equal to the number of different people running. I mean, I know a lot of Dittoheads say things like "I agree 100% with you Rush" but I have yet to meet anyone that shares my political views 100%. I would be my own political party with my own views. I might team up with people who have similar views on a particular issue, but not a blanket kind of agreement.

    Heck, I'd settle for a viable 3rd party of any kind to shake things up for the two established money/power machines. Well, almost any kind.:p
     
  11. coolsoldier thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    The 909
    #11
    Sadly, the democrats are often just as corrupt. In all honesty, I end up voting against the incumbent in almost any election because I don't really agree with either party.
     
  12. eclipse525 macrumors 6502a

    eclipse525

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    USA, New York
    #12
    Democrates and Republicans are just two big Country Clubs. If you're not part of either than you're noboby. Teach our kids to become critical thinkers and watch their view of the world change. Especially about politics and an system that is so out of date. Most kids are Dem's or Repub's almost by default and not because they really believe in one or the other. Solutions is what's needed, NOT discussions of pro's and con's of either party.


    ~e
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    While I don't necessarily agree that political parties inherently become lightening rods for corruption, they do tend to act to perpetuate their own institutional interests over the interests of their constituencies. This is another way of saying that the two major parties are more interested in obtaining and retaining political power then in accomplishing anything in particular for the people they represent. What they do manage to accomplish can generally be understood for how it ties directly into the dollars they need to remain in office after the next election.

    I'm quite certain this is not the system envisioned by the nation's founders who I suspect would be horrified to see how completely detached the national and institutional interests have become. The result may not be corruption as the word is usually understood (eg, bribery), but it is a corruption of our democratic system of government.
     
  14. Rebel macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    #14
    It is certainly not difficult to find Americans who have given up. Their conclusion is that the government is too powerful, too corrupt, too rich, and too corporatized. They have lost hope and allowed discouragement to take control. Often that lost hope is a consequence of bad information — such as the myth that the country is already occupied by countless thousands of terrorist, our freedoms are already eroding and are well on their way to being lost.

    What these American citizens overlook, of course, is that we still possess freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press — including the freedom to bring forth revolutionary change. We are still able to sound the alarm with our voices, our pens, our resources, our money, and our influence. We can still effect change in government through the simple process of informing our fellow citizens and consolidating our voice for just causes. In short, we can still use our freedoms to save our freedoms and our hard-earned money. If it were too late, such freedoms would no longer be permitted and the corrupt would have free reign.

    Small groups of activists will always succeed against disorganized and apathetic majorities. No one knows this better than the corrupt ones themselves. It will not take millions to stop them, but it will take many more than are involved today. If everyone who is aware helps another to understand; if the newly informed also awaken others; and if many of them come together under an effective organization to challenge and expose abusive and corrupt government, the tide of battle will be turned in the American Citizens favor.



    United Citizens of America
     
  15. Rebel macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    #15
    No one wants to be a slave. It is easy to demonstrate that a continuation of present U.S. tax policies, at all levels, will in the not-too-distant future, lead all but the affluent, and corrupt ones themselves into political and economic slavery. Our government leader’s goal should be to promote freedom and prosperity for all; instead, they are promoting economic slavery with over-burdensome taxation for their own benefit.

    All we must find and build and use, to win, is sufficient understanding of the tax abuses being perpetuated on American Citizens by political greed and corruption. Taxation or better defined as the abusive taxation of American citizens for political self-gain will be the downfall of our economics, employment gratification and our society. Tax abuse cannot withstand exposure, and we encourage good Americans to diligently light the way for their friends, neighbors, and loved ones with the truth — and, above all, to fight as we did in our revolution, and not to give up.

    Americans need to understand and build effective resistance to the tax abuses and corruption rampant through our government ranks. If we citizens do not do it, nobody else will. We will just have ourselves to blame.


    United Citizens of America
     
  16. Rebel macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    #16
    UCAnation.org

    Thoughtful people trying to figure out what went wrong with America might ponder a metaphor from the theory of thermodynamics. We are witnessing breakdowns in technology, institutions, and ethics affecting business, government, media, the military - all areas of American life. The whole system seems to be running down.

    Our economy has been sluggish in the aggregate, but even worse is the shift in composition of employment and gross domestic product. Increasingly, we are expending resources on goods and services that are defensive, remedial, illusory, and double-counted, using ecologically unsound methods.

    These same themes of system disorder, thermal loss, choice unrelated to meaning, reduction of useful energy, and threats to natural processes are found in discussions of entropy.
    Scholars (W. Pauli and C.G. Jung among them) have pointed out the connectedness of scientific knowledge and moral wisdom, with transcendent lessons to be learned from changing perceptions.

    For understandable reasons we exercised our creative impulses most vigorously these past five centuries in science, technology, and business. But if necessity is the mother of invention, it's time now to devote more of that creative thinking and open-mindedness to the field of moral ethics - so that we and our neighbors in the world can survive in peace to enjoy the material gains achieved.
     
  17. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #17
    I am a firm believer in the run-off system.

    There have been studies conducted on the ranking system that indicate that the results would be disasterous. The main problem is that the bulk of conservatives would rank Bush first and Gore last to harm his standing. The bulk of the liberals would do the same thing only vice versa. The end result would be President Pat Buchannan since he would be ranked in about the middle on most ballots. The general populace is not very smart and would let their emotions get in the way of the actual working of the ballot system. We could very easily have some bizarre candidate like Pat Buchannan or perhaps the Communist candidate winning the election for this reason.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    At this point I think I'd prefer a President Buchanan. At least he's what he says he is - a conservative.

    Besides, say you only get two options, since in this country there is a dearth of political parties. Conservatives would likely rank the GOP and Libertarian tops, while liberals would put the Democrats and possibly the Greens at the top. Voting for Bush as a Liberal supporter would give him a point in the yes column, not something any opponent of his would likely do.

    The only reason I see a ranking system as viable is because I don't see the level of voter participation that would get people to the polls a second time to finish the run-off. If it could happen, I'd be happy to go that route.
     
  19. coolsoldier thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    The 909
    #19
    A variation on the ranking system is used by many states in absentee ballots (so that they only have to mail out one ballot). It works fine for that small percentage of votes, where if there is a runoff, your vote is automatically cast for whichever of the two candidates you ranked highest. Fundamentally, this is no different than a runoff system except that you only cast one ballot.

    A true ranking system, however, would, instead of favoring a candidate supported by the majority, would favor the candidate who was the best compromise between the various factions (i.e. the one everybody put near the middle), which, if it could be made to work the way it was supposed to is IMO a better option. I don't doubt, though, that people (esp. candidates :rolleyes: ) would come up with an order that tilted the tables towards their #1 candidate -- some people, politicians perhaps more than others, will always try to game the system.
     

Share This Page