So much for getting rid of Democratic or Republican parties

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Shivetya, Oct 21, 2009.

  1. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #1
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...sletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature

    Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

    Amazing isn't it, even the process of Democracy gets stomped by the new guys. So a local vote can be nullified by the Federal government. I wonder what would happen if a state put it up to vote.

    Never underestimate what people will do once they are in power
     
  2. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #2
    I guess this answers the question of why there are so few black GOPers. Federal policy requires them to be Democrats.

    If Glenn Beck wants to rebuild some sense of credibility, Loretta King should be in his sights instead of the whatever insane topic of the day that he wanders into.
     
  3. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #3
    that is pathetic that the Obama administration did this and I hope it is pick up by other medias and they fry for this.

    Sorry but Obama administration saying is crap. I know for a fact Houston and Dallas by law is nonpartisan for all election. I want to say it is even a state law that all local election are required to be nonpartisan. I know for fact both Cities have elected black mayors.
    I know plenty of small towns in Texas that have had minority mayors.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    Uhh...yeah, right. That's what the DOJ said. :rolleyes:

    That said- this is wrong and needs to be addressed. If the city wants non-partisan elections, they should get them.

    I doubt Glen Beck will talk about this. It's actually an issue with substance, and we all know that's not his area of expertise.
     
  5. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #5
    If you would just take off the partisan blinders for a minute...

    Why was the vote nullified in this case?

    Because, according to the article:

    In this case, I disagree with DoJ and with King's decision and her reasoning, but let's be clear, this wasn't a case of the government acting randomly or without precedent, rather this was part of a law the city knew they were subject to.

    Locally, Tucson has a similar process and to be frank, it's a meaningless distinction, the dark-horse Republican candidates still speak the GOP line and go to Tea Parties and the Democratic candidates follow the DNC and go to cultural events. We still have parties locally because we still have state and national parties.
     
  6. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #6
    While the OP misunderstood the reasoning behind why the Feds got involved, the issue still remains that the decision and rationale have a partisan bent to them.
     
  7. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #7
    That's ********. Obama can't say that equal rights can only come as a result of the democratic party? So much for transparency in office. :rolleyes: If by transparency you mean Obama is going to overrule everything that may break down parties all together then yes, he's done us all a solid here. :cool:
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    Let's be clear- Obama didn't do anything. The DOJ, part of his administration, did.
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #9
    Uh, isn't a rose still a rose even if you call it a daffodil? What the hell is the point in removing the party name from the ballots? :confused:
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    Both Partys are corrupt and rotten, we need to ban both of them and all the ones who hang out in the halls of washington with tons of $$$ that buys off these guys. Lobbyist.
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    When I said partisan, I meant Shiv's propensity to make every issue a clear and present danger when Democrats do it, but I can see that I was unclear.

    I disagree entirely with the rationale which seeks to link party politics with the Voting Right Act. If the ~9,000 black voters are unwilling to participate previously, being able to vote along party lines isn't going to change that.
     
  12. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #12
    The parties are dying off I give the Reps 10 years (estimate) before the members numbers dwindle to an insignificant amount to have a controlling stake in bipartisan politics (I don't know what party will replace them, but it will happen). The Dems aren't too far behind I place their demise at about 15 years (the reverse would have been likely had the Republicans won this last presidential race) only prolonging the inevitable--they had a good run approximately 150 years as separate parties out of the 233 years this nation has existed far longer than the whigs or other major parties.
     
  13. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #13
    So that you vote on their merits and not their party line. Most people who are democrats/repubs who don't recognize a person auto check the side they belong to without knowing their policies.
     
  14. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #14
    The flip side is that it gives a distinct advantage to the candidate with the best name recognition (see Schwarzenegger, Arnold); with the party name you at least get a rough idea of what a candidate's policies are.
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    But, all this does is shift voters from party lines, where at least they might understand who might ideologically follow their interests, to name recognition which gives political families and those with deep pockets to line the streets with signs.

    I'm still not convinced that removing party designations does anything to help voters or disrupt party affiliations.
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    If that were true I would vote republican more often.
     
  17. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #17
    What is wrong with voting for the best person for the job. The party they are affiliated doesn't matter as long as you agree with the persons views. Another reason to do away with the party system. Deep pockets are all throughout politics, it doesn't matter what party they are on. You don't see many poor people running. To bring money into the argument is a moot point. Everyone in politics has money.
     
  18. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #18
    Why cant we hold Obama accountable for this. You and many others held bush accountable for things his administration did.

    Seems like a double standard to me.
     
  19. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #19
    Come on, Lee. And Dick didn't torture anybody, it was those folks in the CIA. When push comes to shove, the POTUS (real or shadow) is the end of the line. Cheney is ultimately responsible for what happened under his administration, Obama is responsible for what happens under his. Even if you think the line from Obama to King is too fuzzy, the article indicates that she has Holder's blessing.

    So what? The vote doesn't disenfranchise anybody, and doesn't try to. It isn't unconstitutional. It isn't even a debated public policy issue. If the voters see a benefit in making this shift, why should we deny them?
     
  20. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #20
    And you think Obama has nothing to do with this?
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Do you think he told the DOJ how to rule on it? Really?

    You're right, but I have yet to hear Obama address this. Does anyone have anything where he stated that this was his position?
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    Well, first the inclusion of a party designation doesn't keep voters from choosing who they is the best person for the job, instead the party system creates a funnel for money to go to candidates who may or may not be able to support their own campaign independently. But, I think you're mistaken if you think that the DNC won't help fund candidates that they see as viable and necessary because they don't have a D next to their name. The funding avenues will continue and all the old problems remain, except that now our apathetic voter is looking a a list of names without any other context, thus they may pick a name that sounds culturally similar or is more recognizable because of other reasons—including money and not because that person was a good candidate.

    Of course, politics is money and money is politics, but removing the party designation doesn't fix this.


    First, read my post about the administration's decision. I think it's a sieve. Secondly, I never argued that it was unconstitutional or even wrong, nor should it be denied. However, I've heard a lot of happy talk about how this will fix the two party system and I just don't buy the argument.
    The parties will continue to move money around to support local candidates, aware voters will still be able to discern that the guy praising the Minuteman (to use a local example) is probably a Republican, and our apathetic voters will just shift from voting down the line to voting for names.
     
  23. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #23
    George Washington was against the idea of party's. George was a smart guy and think we should follow his lead.
     
  24. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #24
    Even if that was a good idea, the problem is that there's no way to do it.
     
  25. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #25
    Didnt they say that about the king of England? We did it.
     

Share This Page